Widgetized Section

Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone

McConnell says banning pork ain’t that easy

By The Associated Press
November 7, 2010

Senate Minority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell of Ky., delivers his remarks on the elections and policy agenda for moving forward, Thursday, Nov. 4, 2010, at the Heritage Foundation in Washington. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)

Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell says banning pork-barrel projects known as “earmarks” from congressional legislation is more complicated than it appears but that he is willing to consider such a ban.

McConnell says that ending the common practice of slipping funding requests for home-state projects into legislation won’t cut spending. A ban on earmarks will only limit the discretion of where to spend the vast federal budget and not curb spending.

Republican Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina has said he wants to ban all lawmakers’ requests for specific spending. President Barack Obama has backed that idea.

McConnell says Republicans are ready to cut federal spending but says banning earmarks is not a realistic way to do that.

McConnell spoke Sunday on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

Enhanced by Zemanta

9 Responses to McConnell says banning pork ain’t that easy

  1. Kris

    November 8, 2010 at 1:01 am

    Only proves that McConnell is all talk and no action. The Tea Party is going to crush him!

    • Pegib

      November 9, 2010 at 12:48 am

      AMEN! AMEN! Brothers,

      McCONNELL NEEDS to GO!

  2. Carl Nemo

    November 8, 2010 at 1:12 am

    “A ban on earmarks will only limit the discretion of where to spend the vast federal budget and not curb spending.” …extract from article

    Mitch must be phase-locked in a stupid loop or he thinks we’re stupid This individual is the worst possible candidate from which to expect reform. He’s a slick-talkin’ rethug worm and if folks care to do some research on his background, his connections and sentiments, you’ll see in short order where his allegiances reside.

    Can’t he wrap his intellect around the fact that “pork” needs to be summarily curtailed along with spending too. Yep, Mitch you’ll truly experience the effect of “synergy” by addressing two aspects of the same core issue simultaneously; ie., start operating within our national budget, all new off budget programs funded as a function of paygo principles; ie., they’ll have to rob Peter’s pet program to pay Paul without access to new tax money, not even for the maintenance of ongoing adventuristic, faux wars.

    Carl Nemo **==

  3. Carl Nemo

    November 8, 2010 at 1:29 am

    In the past I’ve mentioned that I analyze photo’s particularly one’s with a political slant. Setting aside Mitch’s homely looks; does he look like the kinda guy that’s going to be instrumental in making summary changes for our benefit; I.E., a savior of our Republic…? / : |

    Carl Nemo **==

    • griff

      November 8, 2010 at 7:53 pm

      Ummmm…not exactly. It more looks like he’s illustrating the approximate size of the wad of cash delivered monthly for his part in the selling of of this country.

      Folks, just for your information, so-called earmarks make up less than one percent of the annual budget. Furthermore, they also represent a return of our federal tax dollar investment back into our local communities.

      This money is already allocated in the budget, hence if the Congress didn’t spend it, it would be up to the executive branch to spend it.

      Who would you rather spend your money?

      This is just another election year distraction they use to make us believe they’re really out to slash the monstrous deficit.

      • Almandine

        November 8, 2010 at 9:17 pm

        As I recall, without looking, earmarks were only about $20B of the 2008 budget… not exactly peanuts, but not the problem either.

        • Ralyn

          November 9, 2010 at 12:34 am

          There is much more to the need for banning earmarks than the extra spending. While the spending for earmarks may not appear to be that much on the surface – the bribery and corruption that utilizes these earmarks is extremely costly by encouraging earmarks as way to pass bad and unconstitutional laws – many of which have greatly contributed to the out of control spending. Also earmarks do not all go back into districts as you are lead to believe. More money goes into the pockets of lobbyists and activists than go back into our communities, and a lot goes to foreign countries through earmarks too.

  4. woody188

    November 8, 2010 at 9:39 pm

    Yeah, it’s fun to complain about earmarks when the elephant in the room is the trillion dollar “defense” budget which does not include the trillion dollars spent on war in the Middle East. Last I checked, that involved at least 3 other nations (Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan), and is about to expand into Yemen and possibly Iran. Rumor has it we’ll be going into Africa as well to Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya and Mauritania.

    So is this World War III yet?

    Is large scale war our only plan to get out of this depression?

    • Doc_Holiday

      November 8, 2010 at 10:28 pm

      We have been in Africa for years Woody. But we just in recent years stood-up AFRICOM or Africa Command. Money is being pumped each year into these African countries. With Americans seeing none of it.

      Since the War on Terror was declared. We can now go into any country that would pose such a threat in the interest of national security. We did it in the early ninetys when Bush senior signed an executive order stating that drugs being smuggled into America was a national security matter, (War on Drugs) and which allowed the U.S. Military to get involved.

      Doc