Will the GOP Establishment Betray Tea Party for the ‘Bachus Bigger Government Agenda’?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Despite widespread conservative outrage over Rep. Spencer Bachus’ (R-AL) attack on Sarah Palin and the Tea Party movement, and despite Bachus’ long history of support for bigger government, GOP Congressional leaders — in their FIRST action since the election — appear ready to betray the Tea Party movement by handing Bachus chairmanship of the House Financial Services Committee.

...Bachus — who is in a battle for the chairmanship of the House Financial Services Committee with Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA) — told the South Shelby (Ala.) Chamber of Commerce that former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and the Tea Party movement cost the Republican Party control of the U.S. Senate. “The Senate would be Republican today except for states (in which Gov. Palin endorsed candidates) like Christine O’Donnell in Delaware,” Bachus said. “Sarah Palin cost us control of the Senate.” He went on to say that Tea Party candidates did well in U.S. House races, but in the U.S. Senate races, “they didn’t do well at all.”

While Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) spoke out against Bachus’ statements, most business-as-usual GOP Congressional leaders remained silent on the issue. That left Sarah Palin to defend herself from Bachus’ attacks. She strongly refuted Bachus’ claims and then cited Bachus’ lengthy record of support for big government — which consists largely of support for government programs like TARP and “Cash for Clunkers,” various schemes to block Americans from accessing online poker websites, and any other big government plans that come down the pike — aptly calling it the “Bachus bigger government agenda.”

Sadly, the me-too establishment Republican Congressional leaders appear ready to embrace the Bachus bigger government agenda over Ed Royce’s principled stands for less government. Royce, who cast votes in opposition to TARP and “Cash for Clunkers,” would appear to be the natural choice of the two to head a committee so important to the aims of those who voted for Republican candidates this year. Too bad GOP leadership seems to think this election win meant there would be more business as usual, because it does not. One would have at least expected them to let the ink dry on the election returns before betraying the movement....

http://biggovernment.com/rmuny/2010/11/12/will-the-gop-establishment-betray-tea-party-for-the-bachus-bigger-government-agenda/#more-195353

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

This is just another example of reality catching up with the GOP's rhetoric. Take the upcoming earmark debate, for example. The GOP has made it sound as if stopping the practice would address deficit concerns. That ain't true but that's what they made America - and especially the tea party crowd - believe.

I rarely find myself agreeing with Sen. Inhofe but he's got a valid point: An end to earmarks has zero effect on the deficit. All it does is give the various government agencies more freedom to use appropriated funds where they see fit rather than allowing Congress to direct already appropriated funds to projects it considers worthy.

In other words, the tea party crowd in Congress, from Sen. DeMint on down, are advocating letting the Obama administration off the leash in terms of identifying the programs and projects that appropriated funds will support.

The tea party wants to give Obama more power - how cool is that?

[Pooky 3,846]

This is just another example of reality catching up with the GOP's rhetoric. Take the upcoming earmark debate, for example. The GOP has made it sound as if stopping the practice would address deficit concerns. That ain't true but that's what they made America - and especially the tea party crowd - believe.

I rarely find myself agreeing with Sen. Inhofe but he's got a valid point: An end to earmarks has zero effect on the deficit. All it does is give the various government agencies more freedom to use appropriated funds where they see fit rather than allowing Congress to direct already appropriated funds to projects it considers worthy.

In other words, the tea party crowd in Congress, from Sen. DeMint on down, are advocating letting the Obama administration off the leash in terms of identifying the programs and projects that appropriated funds will support.

The tea party wants to give Obama more power - how cool is that?

Much as I dislike John Boehner, I found out today that he has never requested an earmark.

The main problem I have with earmarks is that they usually have nothing to do with the legislation to which they are attached. Sen. Inhofe makes the same mistake most in Washington do. If a Bill contains sufficient funds to perform its intended purpose and has earmarks attached, it should still be able to function minus the earmarks without the cost growing. Congress should be concentrating on keeping the cost of their legislation to a level, rather than allowing it to expand to match the funds available.

And to answer your question on how cool it is - it isn't cool, as the US electorate still gets shafted, just because Washington wants to carry on with (dodgy) business as usual.

[luckytxn 2,265]

Big surprise.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

If a Bill contains sufficient funds to perform its intended purpose and has earmarks attached, it should still be able to function minus the earmarks without the cost growing.

You're still missing the point. The earmarks aren't funds that otherwise wouldn't be spent. Those are funds already appropriated that the Congress now directs to certain projects rather than letting the government agencies make the call on what to fund.

[Pooky 3,846]

You're still missing the point. The earmarks aren't funds that otherwise wouldn't be spent. Those are funds already appropriated that the Congress now directs to certain projects rather than letting the government agencies make the call on what to fund.

And you're still missing the point. If legislation can be enacted with a certain amount of money, why appropriate more than that?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

And you're still missing the point. If legislation can be enacted with a certain amount of money, why appropriate more than that?

The bolded part is where you are confused. There's no additional appropriation for earmarks. Earmarks are the allocation of already appropriated funds to certain projects. If Congress doesn't do that, the executive will. An earmark itself doesn't cost the treasury a penny. The appropriation of the funds that are subsequently earmarked does.

[Pooky 3,846]

The bolded part is where you are confused. There's no additional appropriation for earmarks. Earmarks are the allocation of already appropriated funds to certain projects. If Congress doesn't do that, the executive will. An earmark itself doesn't cost the treasury a penny. The appropriation of the funds that are subsequently earmarked does.

That you don't see the point isn't so puzzling. Appropriate the appropriate level of funding to fulfill the basic legislation and no more. It's a really simple difference.

I know that there is no additional appropriation for earmarks. Therefore, why not appropriate less money in the first place, enough to do the job, but no more, giving no room for earmarks in the first place?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

That you don't see the point isn't so puzzling. Appropriate the appropriate level of funding to fulfill the basic legislation and no more. It's a really simple difference.

I know that there is no additional appropriation for earmarks. Therefore, why not appropriate less money in the first place, enough to do the job, but no more, giving no room for earmarks in the first place?

Fine with me. I've got no dogs in this fight. But ending earmarks will do virtually nothing to address the federal budget issues that need to be addressed. Don't like the energy spent on what is essentially a non-issue when you look at the bigger picture.