Which Republican House Members are opposed to this?

Dovetailing in with my earlier post about the earmark reform resolution at the 12th District Republican Convention, House Republicans are now pushing a total moratorium on earmarks.  However, some House Members are opposed to a moratorium on earmarks. 

Earmarks undermine our government, are anti-democratic, and corrupt the political system. 

Hopefully, there aren’t any GA House Members complaining about an earmark moratorium.  Let’s put the pressure on them all to accept a moratorium. 


  1. Romegaguy says:

    This would make a bigger statement if the Republicans were still in the majority…

    Anyway I predict that several GA House members will make the pledge but wont be serious about it. Yes, Rep Kingston I am looking at you.

  2. Painterman says:

    One way is to attend the AFP Defending the American Dream Summit May 3rd at the 755 Club, Turner Field. http://www.defendingthedream.org/GA/
    This will be a great event and the more people there, the stronger the message to our leaders that we mean business about spending reform.

  3. Holly says:

    I am not a member of the G-7 and I don’t work for one, but I am a Republican against an earmark moratorium, Bull!

    This year’s minority earmark process was plenty of transparency (signing letters promising no personal gain would come to the Member or spouse and a business plan detailing where the earmark’s money would be spent submitted for the Congressional Record), and there is nothing conservative or smart about allowing the bureaucracy otherwise known as the Executive Branch to decide what gets funding.

    I wish my friends here could really see the problem. Earmarks are not it, especially with the way it was handled this year. The money for those appropriations will stay in the budget regardless of whether Members use it or not. If it’s not used for appropriation earmarks, it will simply go to the agencies, and then some lifelong bureaucrats will dole it out as they see fit.

    If you want reform, you must quit looking for the latest scheme to make people think they’re doing something to stop the spending and actually do something to stop the spending. This earmark moratorium is a stunt.

    For real reform that doesn’t concede Legislative powers to the Executive branch (which I think is a terrible mistake):

    1. Balance the budget.
    2. Cut the overall size of the budget.
    3. Conduct another one of those commissions like Reagan did that went through every agency and detailed wasteful areas, which were then cut out.

    These are ways to actually reign in government spending. As a conservative, I support all of them. I do not, and will not, support the earmark moratorium.

  4. Painterman says:

    The issue with earmarks is that it isn’t debated. It’s just inserted without any debate or question. Make the Representatives and Senators defend why it is needed. All spending needs to be linked to where it is allowed by the Constitution for Congress to do so, it in my opinion.

  5. drjay says:

    i think most americans like earmarks that congressmen they know and like dedicate to projects they support and like–but do not like earmarks by congressmen they do not know or like that are dedicated to stupid unneeded projects…

  6. Demonbeck says:


    Earmarks that come home are “necessary spending,” everything else is called pork.

    There are plenty of legitimately necessary earmarked funds that will be eliminated by this movement and it will make government less efficient and further hinder our economy.

  7. bowersville says:

    1. balance the budget
    2. cut the overall size of the budget
    3. Conduct another one of those commissions like Reagan did that went through every agency and detailed wasteful areas, which were then cut out.

    Worthy goals, but the American people grew tired of the rhetoric and gave the boot to the so-called conservative controlled GOP Congress.

    Georgia, being behind the national GOP curve, is going to wake up and give the boot to our own Ga. GOP controlled House and Senate if they don’t wake up.

  8. Bull Moose says:

    Earmarks circumvent local priorities to those set by any entity that has enough money and power to hire a lobbying firm and lobby a Member of Congress for an earmark.

    In some instances, the earmarks take money away from other priorities in a community because the earmark dictates how the programmed money is spent. So who sets the priority – a local community setting priorities or Members of Congress who are not involved usually in the process of setting local priorities?

    As for government programs and funding, most of these are competitive, so programs that produce results and meet criteria are funded, those that do not, don’t get funded.

    If Members of Congress are so concerned that they feel the need to earmark, perhaps they should take away some of the authority from the executive branch.

    I’m sorry, but as someone that worked in the executive branch, I totally disagree with the premise that somehow regular government funds are dolled out by bureaucrats based on how they feel on any given day. That is simply so backwards from true, that it’s assinine to suggest such a thing.

    It’s no lie that the process needs to be reformed. Congress has in its ability the power to take back authority as to how programs are designed, regulated, funded, etc… Congress also has the power of oversight.

    In the meantime, a moratorium on earmarks is the right course of action. Defending earmarks is akin to the people who were against the balanced budget amendment and line item veto.

  9. Bull Moose says:

    Going further, if some of the earmarked items are so important, make provisions for their funding in the regular legislative process. Give them the light of day and legislative scrutiny that they deserve. Have committees hold hearings on the legislative worthiness of the programs. If these items are of such great value and importance, they will succeed.

    I agree with John McCain, some items, especially items that aren’t even requested by the executive agencies, are pork.

    We must get back to the birthright of reform that is the Republican Party’s birthright. Only then will we succeed and prosper as a majority party.

  10. Demonbeck says:

    Somehow, I have gone through my entire life believing that the mantra of the Republican party was to decentralize the power of government.

    So now we’re for adding power to the Executive at the expense of the people’s branch?

    I still and always will believe that Congressmen and Senators will know the needs of their constituencies much more than some bureaucrat located in Washington, DC.

    Defending earmarks is not akin to opposing the BBA or the line item. Defending earmarks is akin to defending the very thoughts of Publius as they wrote the Federalist papers while drafting the Constitution.

  11. Holly says:

    Not in the case of my boss, Bull, who is an RSC member but is not a Georgian. We’re most likely to fund projects in the district that come from chambers of commerce, or the university in our district, or the local elected officials. If you look from office to office, you’ll find that the large majority of them operate under the same method. A few bad apples always exist, but their constituents have the option to vote them out every two years. And the appropriators have the option not to include the earmarks.

    Someone said earlier that the problems was they were not being debated, which in prior years was true. However, that’s a concern that was addressed and decided by Executive Order earlier this year that the only earmarks to be followed by agencies from now on are the ones in the texts of bills. That means they are, in fact, all debated now.

  12. Demonbeck says:


    We’ve talked about this before. You can attest to anyone here that I am as conservative as they come. However, I believe very strongly that we should always strive to maintain a healthy balance of power between the three branches of government. Negating the Legislative branch’s right to disagree with the Executive or direct funds as they see fit, in my opinion, takes away a fundamental check on the executive branch’s power.

    Put a hard cap on the size of the budget, force a balanced budget amendment or give the executive the power of the line item veto and I’ll support you, but when modeling the budget, I will always believe that local voices should be heard. Putting it up to a competitive basis just gives the money to those groups that can fill out a grant request better. In the end, the decision will ultimately be made by humans working from words on a paper rather than officials who have to face voters on a regular basis.

    We can both be strict constructionists and have these views, you’re just Thomas Jefferson to my John Adams (yes, the wife and I watched the HBO miniseries.)

    We both want a healthier state, we just see a different route needed to get there.

  13. Jace Walden says:


    What in the hell does it mean to be “as conservative as they come”? If you believe in limited government, fiscal responsibility and free markets, then the “Conservative” label is that last thing you want heaped on you.

    Conservatives have been an economic and fiscal embarrasment for the past 20 years. Much worse than the so-called, “tax and spend” liberals.

  14. Demonbeck says:


    You are getting “Conservative” and “conservative” mixed up. I was using conservative as a descriptive term rather than as a party affiliation.

  15. Jace Walden says:


    No. I was referring to the descriptive term. It’s the most tainted descriptive term in politics. To be a “conservative” means to grow government, stifle personal responsibility, and piss on individual rights. It’s a descriptive term that I want nothing to do with.

  16. Doug Deal says:


    I agree with you. I hate the liberal/conservative labels, as it seems to mean one of the following:

    1) Pro-life = conservative
    2) Pro-Choice = liberal

    How about instead, who believe in bigger government and who believes in smaller government?

  17. Demonbeck says:

    That’s what liberal and conservative are supposed to mean. If it will make any of you feel better and get us back to the original topic, I will happily replace my words and say, “I support the idea of smaller government wholeheartedly.”

Comments are closed.