On Getting Rid of All Earmarks, And Other Positions Bill Sali Doesn’t Take

MGR questions Bill Sali’s sincerity on opposing wasteful earmarks:

Back in July, Rep. Obey of Wisconsin offered H.Amdt 550, an amendment striking all earmarks from one of those bills, the Labor, HHS and Education funding.  The amendment failed on a 53-369 vote.  If Bill Sali had courage, he would tell you that when he had the chance to wipe out all of those “wasteful and outlandish programs,” he voted against it.

Yes, and if some better research were done, we would know that Congressman Obey (D-WI) actually voted against his own Amendment. If this was not a Democratic effort at fiscal responsibility, what was it?

It was an effort to prove that grandest sin (and the only real one in the eyes of Democrats.) “I think 90 percent of the earmarks attached by Members of both parties are perfectly legitimate….Members vote for the amendment that I intend to attach to every appropriation bill, which would call for a total elimination on earmarks. I want to see how many of you actually vote for it. I want to see how many of you do not give hypocrisy a bad name.”

Of course, Obey missed the key argument. The argument from most Republicans has not been “no earmarks” but transparency and that the earmarks be of a reasonable nature.

While MGR is right that voting for the Obey Amendment (if a non-serious Amendment like that passed) would have gotten rid of all wasteful earmarks, it would have gotten rid of the non-wasteful ones as well. Efforts in the House have focused on egregious areas of waste and the overall size of the budget. Sali has been consistent on opposing waste, but has never taken a “eliminate all earmarks” platform.

Secondly, it has to be said that the wasteful earmarks that remained in the bill were only one element of the bill’s issue. The bill was “bloated” according to Sali, which means it spent too much money and far exceeded the President’s request. 

Also Democratic Congressional  Walter Minnick issued his response to Sali, questioning his sincerity and demanding to know why other actions weren’t taken:

Or if he had voted to curtail pork barrel earmarks by all Congressmen when that bill was introduced at the beginning of this Congress–and for legislation requiring that any new Congressional spending be offset by spending cuts elsewhere in the budget.

Or if he had introduced a bill to require that the federal government balance its budget annually like you and I and the state of Idaho have to do every year.

Mr. Minnick could use some better researchers, because Bill Sali is an original co-sponsor of the Balanced Budget Amendment, H.J. Res 1. Please note in the past that most opposition to this bill has come from the Democratic Party and that no votes have been scheduled on this issue. Second point, regarding Pay as You Go, Bill Sali addressed this issue in depth in January:

“While ‘pay as you go’ is an appealing slogan, the reality is that the Democratic proposal passed today provides ample room for tax hikes and higher federal spending under the guise of fiscal responsibility,” U.S. Rep. Bill Sali said today. “This is really a case of legislative false advertising.

“No one wants greater spending restraint than me, which is why I am an original cosponsor of the Balanced Budget Amendment legislation being introduced in the new Congress. Yet when the Democratic leadership uses a term like ‘pay as you go’ to justify spending priorities not in line with our country’s needs, I have to oppose it.

“Moreover, spending hikes are all the easier because if they are added to a budget resolution’s baseline, they are exempted from ‘Paygo.’ Put another way, the Democratic ‘pay as you go’ plan gives a strong platform for bigger federal spending.

“We must not raise taxes, increase entitlement spending or reduce vital defense spending under the guise of ‘paying as you go.’ True fiscal discipline means making tough choices and putting Uncle Sam on a diet, which is what I’ll fight for in the next two years of my congressional term,” Sali concluded.

The attack of Bill Sali for alleged hypocrisy is a sign of weakness. Not only is the argument weak based on Sali’s record, but it shows the bankruptcy of the Democrat position.

It amounts to a tacit admission that he’s correct on the need for restraining federal spending. At this point, save for Congressman Jim Cooper (D-TN), no Democrat (including a lot of freshman who ran around pretending to be fiscal conservatives) in the House has consistently stood up for fiscal discipline in Congress. There’s no reason to believe that Walter Minnick or Larry Grant or whoever will be any different than the Big Spending Democrat majority. Rather they will raise your taxes in the name of fiscal discipline, but they have no plans to reduce the size and scope of government. They don’t believe government needs to go on diet, but rather that you and I need to get used to having a lot less money, so we can fund big government largess.