Saxby Chambliss’ Statement On Earmarks

WASHINGTON – U.S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., today released the following statement:  

“The American people are rightly concerned about reducing federal spending. Now that there appears to be an agreement to oppose earmarks, I hope Congress will begin a serious discussion of how to cut federal spending on larger, more meaningful scale.
“I have consistently voted for the elimination of earmarks in the past and will support the earmark-moratorium resolution today.
“However, there are times when crises arise or issues come forth of such importance to Georgia, such as critical support to the port of Savannah, and the nation that I reserve the right to ask Congress and the president to approve funding.”


  1. bucky says:

    “I want to clarify that I was for earmarks before I opposed them, and I may be for them again in the future”

  2. View from Brookhaven says:

    That’s some awesome double-speak. The type only perfected by far too long in DC. Who’s up for a primary challenge?

  3. kdoc says:

    “Now that others have gotten on the bandwagon, I’ll get on as well. But I reserve the right to jump off the bandwagon if it will help me.”

  4. kdoc says:

    If the port of Savannah is truly in need of “critical support,” then bring up a separate bill to provide that support, and let it come to an up-or-down vote on its own merits. Don’t keep hiding these expenditures in other bills.

  5. B Balz says:

    The Senator is correct: Not all earmarks are bad and many are not good, but earmarks in and of themselves are not the problem.

    • Actually Senator Isakson did support the Coburn-DeMint Earmark moratorium amendments in 2008 and 2010.

      I’m hoping for a more definitive statement feom him than Saxby’s double side-step.

  6. gritsnga says:

    I am pretty disappointed in the Senators reply and statement. He seems to be hedging his bet and is really not in favor of the earmark ban. earmarks are not a big part of the spending problem, but to ban them is a big start to cut overall spending. To bad he still “doesn’t get it” I really though he was a conservative….

    • B Balz says:

      Intuitively we can view this as a hedge, but frankly, there are good earmarks. And many more bad ones. There are going to be some ugly legislative victims of a ‘one-size fits all’ moratorium.

      Earmarks are the low hanging fruit that a lawmaker can point to and say, “See, I get it, no more spending”

Comments are closed.