Good Ol' Senator Reid,...Earmarks Are What "We're Supposed To Do"...

[Rastus]

If you have liars and thieves running the show they will find a way to go around or ignore restrictions for their benefit.   Our problem is a lack of character and patriotism in our congressmen...a reflection of our population's priorities and discernment. 

The earmark fervor is fanned by John McCain and I got that at lunch one on one with U.S. Senator Inhofe the day after the November elections.  James Inholfe has a degree in economics and, besides pointing out our road to ruin with the deficit, wisely pointed out that eliminating earmarks would allow congress to only vote yea or nay on the President's entire budget.  Remember who is the president. 

So...if the President doesn't want missile defense or wants to defund our ICBMS, aircraft carriers, whatever maybe an entire branch of the military pick one, as a case in point, an elimination of earmarks would eliminate the ability of congress to force him to fund necessary items. 

The most left Democrats are quietly supporting this so long as their guy is in.  John McCain has this stance to benefit his political aspirations without regard to the consequences. 

The problem isn't with the earmarks.  It's with the people in congress which, sadly, is a reflection of the inability of voters to avoid believing lies and also of the priority of the people who vote.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/reid-earmarks-are-%E2%80%98what-we%E2%80%99re-supposed-to-do%E2%80%99/

    Preparing for a final showdown on the massive $1.1 trillion spending bill, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid defended the thousands of earmarks in the measure as the basic function of Congress.

    “That’s our job. That‘s what we’re supposed to do,” Mr. Reid, Nevada Democrat, said as he chastised fellow senators who, while having requested pork-barrel spending earlier this year, are now decrying their inclusion in the spending bill.

    Mr. Reid challenged those senators to voluntarily agree to strip their own earmarks out of the bill, and said so far, nobody has taken him up on that.

[fightingquaker13]

The earmark fervor is fanned by John McCain and I got that at lunch one on one with U.S. Senator Inhofe the day after the November elections.  James Inholfe has a degree in economics and, besides pointing out our road to ruin with the deficit, wisely pointed out that eliminating earmarks would allow congress to only vote yea or nay on the President's entire budget.  Remember who is the president. 

So...if the President doesn't want missile defense or wants to defund our ICBMS, aircraft carriers, whatever maybe an entire branch of the military pick one, as a case in point, an elimination of earmarks would eliminate the ability of congress to force him to fund necessary items. 

Due respect Rastus, but you had lunch with one of those liars. Inhofe fed you a line of crap. "eliminatinating earmarks means an up or own vote on the President's budget"? Either he is a fool, or thinks you are. Last I checked all spending bills start in the House, the President's budget is merely a requst, it has no force of law at all. His party will generally submit it, and then it will be argued though the Congress, with the threat of a veto hovering over the debate. The veto and the bully pulpit are the only power the President has over the budget. Inhofe is, as I said a liar or a fool if he's giving you this line about "We poor Congress critters need earmarks to defend you against the evil President, and that mean Senator McCain is too arrogant to see it". line. The budget is, and always has been a Congressional power.
FQ13

[tombogan03884]

Article  1

Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

[Rastus]

FQ, I appreciate your constitutional refresher, "Last I checked all spending bills start in the House, the President's budget is merely a requst, it has no force of law at all. His party will generally submit it, and then it will be argued though the Congress, with the threat of a veto hovering over the debate. The veto and the bully pulpit are the only power the President has over the budget." . 

Here is a question pair, do you 1) know, actually know not think, what the proponents of earmark fervor want to do to make the change, and 2) more importantly, how they want to do it (two questions)?   

If you haven't actually done the research but somehow know anyway, please make an attempt to read what the proponents for earmarks want the law to be, how they want it crafted, and what they call for congress to give up before you call someone a liar.  If you have actually done the research and still want to call him a liar...that's your perogative...perhaps silly, wrong, egotistical and who knows, maybe deliberately misleading,...but your perogative none the less.  Hell, it is your perogative even if you don't know what's really what and don't care to know the facts.  Heck, when I was majoring in psychology many years ago there was a guy who called himself a fire plug...I'm kewl, he can call himself a fire plug and be right in his own mind, who am I to say he is not a fire plug........

The law does not exist yet....it's what some want and how they want it...not what it is now...or did that just drift over your head or what (that is a question, by the way)?  I never said, nor did I allude that he said anyone could remove earmarks as settled law or process today but that this was an aim of some (and I would say of the leaders) wanting to eliminate earmarks.
 
Damn the inconvenient truth, but what they (leading proponents of earmarks) are asking for does not fit with the Constitutional mandate.  Before reponding that a piece of paper will protect us, what happened with that Federal Reserve thingey...controlling the currency....Congress surrendered controlling the currency....doesn't a piece of paper protect us from something like the private corporation known as the Federal Reserve (another question) controlling US currency?  Few on this board are naive enough to believe that what is in the Constitution will stop politicians from going over, around or through it....few, not everyone.  Some like to believe it will protect them from things they think are bad just because...a less than adult outlook on life.

The man does not take people for fools.  He does not operate on the premise of fooling or "getting over on" someone.  He is kind, courteous and wants people to understand what he says, why he says it and what the basis is for his stand on issues....as opposed to those who push unread bills into law, who support and vote for unilateral disarmanent of the nation because the Russians demand it, or who try to destroy the 2nd Ammendment and, who by the way, seem to be masters of treating people who vote for them like fools (might be some truth in that though).

But hey, you were insightful enough to vote for Obama, what do I know (another question)?

[fightingquaker13]

Rastus
Here's a short and non-hostile reply. I responded just to your post. Please reread it. You referred to no new statutory reform effort or anything like it. You simply said that Inhofe informed you that if earmarks were banned, it would be yay or nay on the President's budget. I found that statement to be made out of either ignorance or a desire to decieve by making you think that it was either the status quo or a parade of horribles. If there is a subtext, some particular measure that has a real chance of making it into law rather than a rules change, please let me know.
 I don't want to get into an argument where I don't have all the facts. You simply did not present information to suggest that anything I said was incorrect. If I am, I'll cheerfully admit it. You and I tend to rub each other the wrong way sometimes. Sometimes I think its that we don't communicate clearly with one another. This might be one of those times. If I am missing something that would shift the Constitutional power of the purse from the Congress to the executive, please enlighten us. That is a sincere request.
Peace
FQ13
PS Your points about the Fed etc. are worthwhile, and worth discussing, but they do not seem germain. Like wise, you are correct in saying the Constitution is not self enforcing. Still, the idea of the Congress, the House in particular, willingly surrendering the power of the purse seems remote to me.

[Sponsor]