- Edwards Releases Senate Fundraising Totals
- Academics Say Higher Education Prepared Them for Higher Office
- Top Races to Watch in 2016: The Mountain Region
- Top Races to Watch in 2016: New England
- Top Races in 2016: The Midwest
Seeing an opportunity to build on the “cut spending” mantra currently in vogue in Congress, Sens. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) and Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) introduced legislation today that would permanently ban earmarks.
But with powerful opposition to further curb earmarks, including from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), the proposal to limit Member-directed spending is unlikely to get a vote any time soon.
“There is an effort under way to go back to earmarking as usual as it used to be, and I think that would be a disaster for our Congress, and we intend to do our very best to prevent that,” Toomey said at a press conference today. “We can’t afford to waste money this way. ... We are on a fiscal trajectory that can only lead to disaster if we don’t change this path.”
At the beginning of this year, lawmakers agreed to take a two-year break from the practice of Members directing money to particular projects in the annual spending bills.
House Republican leaders led the push for the ban when they won the majority in the last election after campaigning on cutting Washington spending. But Senate leaders in both parties resisted the moratorium until Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) in November 2010 bowed to pressure from within his Conference and signaled he would go along with it. Until that point, McConnell had backed earmarks. Senate Democrats subsequently followed suit, announcing a ban in February.
In the 15 years leading up to 2010, Toomey said earmarks tripled and had risen to $33 billion, which amounts to less than 1 percent of the federal budget.
“I’ll acknowledge that $33 billion itself doesn’t put us on a sustainable fiscal path, but we have to start somewhere,” Toomey said.
McCaskill, who is up for re-election in 2012, said she did not campaign against earmarks when she was running in 2006, but said the more she studied the earmark process, the more she found it repugnant.
“When I got here and people began explaining to me, I said, ‘This isn’t right,’” McCaskill said, adding that she declined to participate. “No one could tell me who was making the decision as to who got how much. No one could tell me how that process occurred.”
The lawmakers said the earmark process leads to wasteful spending.