Well, at least the Tea Party didn't promise change we can believe in: An effort by Senate Republicans to temporarily ban earmarks failed on the Senate floor early Tuesday. Passage of the measure, sponsored by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) would have instituted a moratorium on lawmaker-directed funds through the 2013 fiscal year. But because passage required a suspension of the Senate's regular procedure, it required 67 votes — two-thirds — of the chamber, to pass. The procedural motion to bring the amendment to a pending food-safety bill to the floor was defeated by a 39-56 vote. A handful of Democrats, including McCaskill, outgoing Sens. Evan Bayh, of Indiana, and Russ Feingold, of Wisconsin, and Colorado Sens. Michael Bennet and Mark Udall, supported the amendment. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who had long opposed a ban, also voted to support the proposal Tuesday. Some Republicans, such as James Inhofe (R-Okla.) and Sen. Lisa Murkowski, whose reelection remains contested in Alaska, voted against the motion. (Oliphant) A moment's irony: Once upon a time, a legislative notion called a rider was considered the height of all evil. Anyone remember the spotted owl controversy? That was the 1980s. In the '90s, riders even made it into The Simpsons' repertoire: Arnie: With the bridge gone and the airport unfortunately on the other side of the bridge, a number of citizens are attempting to jump the gorge with their cars. It's a silent testament to the never-give-up and never-think-things-out spirit of our citizens. Kent: With our utter annihilation imminent, our federal government has snapped into action. We go live now via satellite to the floor of the United States Congress. Speaker: Then it is unanimous, we are going to approve the bill to evacuate the town of Springfield in the great state of -- Congressman: Wait a minute, I want to tack on a rider to that bill: $30 million of taxpayer money to support the perverted arts. Speaker: All in favor of the amended Springfield-slash-pervert bill? [everyone boos] Speaker: Bill defeated. [bangs gavel] Kent: I've said it before and I'll say it again: democracy simply doesn't work. (#2F11, "Bart's Comet") How things change. In 2010, the villain is earmarks, and the first round of the Tea Party's fight to balance the budget by trimming less than one percent of the budget—as if the money wouldn't be spent without earmarks—came in the form of a rider attached to a food safety bill. And that vote has failed. We might expect the issue to resurface after the 112th Congress is seated; some suggest we might hear more about it during the lame duck session. I'm hardly one to knock symbolism, but this latest conservative push against earmarks is little more than symbolic. Earmarks make up a tiny fraction of the budget, and there is a valid question whether an earmark ban would actually knock that chip off the budget block, or simply defer the allocation of such funds to the executive branch. Furthermore, with many politicians reluctant to tamper with over ninety percent of the budget (e.g., defense, Medicare, Social Security), it is hard to believe that an earmark ban will make any real difference in reconciling our revenues and expenditures: According to the non-partisan Taxpayers for Common Sense, House and Senate spending bills for FY 2011 contain more than 6,500 earmarks at a cost of $9 billion. Those numbers are not final, however, as an omnibus bill to fund the federal government for 2011 has yet to be passed. (Oliphant) Perhaps more than budget and deficit issues, the earmark vote might provide our first glimpse of the power of the rising Tea Party movement. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! R. J. Matson, Roll Call, December 1, 2010 (via Cagle) While the midterm election might well have put the fear of something into Minority (and future Majority) Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who voted in favor of the earmark ban only days after publicly declaring his opposition to it, the TP effect does not seem to have shaken Democrats as badly as the first weeks of analysis suggested. Of the Democrats who voted for the earmark ban, two will not return to the 112th; Sen. Feingold of Wisconsin is long associated with efforts against political moneygrubbing—most famously with a campaign finance reform effort bearing his name alongside Sen. McCain (R-AZ)—and Sen. Bayh of Indiana represented a generally more conservative state. Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) likewise represents a conservative state. Sen. Bennet (D-CO) won re-election this year, edging his Republican opponent by a narrow margin. Sen. Udall (D-CO), during his days in the U.S. House, representing thirteenth district (Boulder County), supported the SLICE Act in 2007, a bill aimed after earmarks; then again, he also helped secure $19 million in defense spending for his state. Thus, if the defeat of the earmark rider defines anything about the Tea Party, it would be something about the boundaries of its clout. The 2010 midterm might have injured Democrats, but it seems the Republicans are wary; after all, it is through the GOP that the Tea Party seeks to challenge the Democrats. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! John Darkow, Columbus Daily Tribune, November 21, 2010 (via Cagle) Nine billion dollars. Hell, double that to eighteen, since the omnibus isn't finished yet. Meanwhile, some Republicans such as Rep. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee have suggested that the overwhelming share of discretionary spending is off the table. Additionally, the GOP is fighting to extend tax cuts to the wealthiest sector of Americans equaling at least seventy billion dollars a year in lost revenues, all in pursuit of reducing the deficit and national debt. For some reason, this reminds me of the fiscal responsibility movement in the 1994 Republican revolution that sought to offset billions of dollars directed to stealth bombers the Pentagon hadn't asked for while offering paltry cuts (e.g., $170 million or so from the National Endowment for the Arts and several million in White House groundskeeping expenditures) in their commitment to reducing wasteful spending. Someone, please, convince me that if Congress agrees to eliminate earmarks, that money won't be spent anyway. Some Republicans, like Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, are already moving to redefine earmarks: Rep. Michele Bachmann supports a ban on earmarks in Congress, but she thinks that some transportation projects should redefined so they aren't considered earmarks. Bachmann told the Star Tribune she supports a "redefinition" of what an earmark is, because, she said: "Advocating for transportation projects for ones district in my mind does not equate to an earmark." "I don't believe that building roads and bridges and interchanges should be considered an earmark," Bachmann said. "There's a big difference between funding a tea pot museum and a bridge over a vital waterway." (Herb) However, Bachmann was spared today's vote, which took place in the Senate and sought a moratorium against "legislation that includes an earmark or funds directed outside of a 'statutory or administrative formula-driven or competitive award process.'" (Oliphant) In the end, those who oppose earmarks are all over the map, with McConnell flip-flopping, Bachmann aiming to redefine the word, and none able to guarantee that the end of the practice will be anything more than a symbolic, feel-good vote. It is hard to draw any conclusions about the future of the earmark based on today's vote. True enough, the rider, which needed a supermajority to pass, did not even achieve a simple majority. But the 112th Congress might treat the issue differently as the Tea Party victors of November 2 are officially seated. In the 111th, though, the most obvious implication is that, while the Tea Party victory may have sent shockwaves through the American political establishment, they were relatively minor and short-lived. And yet, for all that drama—and, at the very least, a little bit of comedy—it is still unclear what the end of earmarks would actually bring. ____________________ Notes: Oliphant, James. "Republican effort to ban earmarks fails in Senate". Los Angeles Times. November 30, 2010. LATimes.com. November 30, 2010. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-pn-earmark-vote-20101201,0,4837135.story Springfield Nuclear Power Plant. "[2F11] Bart's Comet". January 3, 1996. SNPP.com. November 30, 2010. http://www.snpp.com/episodes/2F11.html Herb, Jeremy. "Bachmann: Transportation projects shouldn't be earmarks". Hot Dish. November 15, 2010. StarTribune.com. November 30, 2010. http://www.startribune.com/politics/blogs/108244669.html
