A Small Victory

Oh my. It just shows you what a little moral persuasion can do.

In a swift victory for tea-party activists, the Senate's top Republican agreed Monday to a plan to ban GOP members from proposing earmarks for spending bills, suggesting that what was once a core part of legislating has now become politically unacceptable.
. . .
Mr. McConnell was a leading defender until Monday, creating tensions within the party and in particular with Sen. Jim DeMint (R., S.C.), a big figure in the tea party. But in his first speech on the Senate floor since the election, Mr. McConnell capitulated.

Now this is in fact a small, but symbolic victory. I have always felt that earmarks were "the gateway drug" to Congressional wasteful spending. This is only a rule that governs Senate Republicans, but it gives them a moral advantage over the Democrats in the Senate. Further, it shows that the Republican establishment can be made to listen. Until Monday, McConnell had been opposed to ending earmarks, but he realized that in these times, it was important to listen to the voters. More from McConnell in the WSJ article:

" . . . But there is simply no doubt that the abuse of this practice has caused Americans to view it as a symbol of the waste and the out-of-control spending that every Republican in Washington is determined to fight."

Analysis from the author of the article Naftali Bendavid:

Mr. McConnell's move was in part an attempt to shift the focus from divisions among Republicans on a contentious issue to distinctions between Democrats and the GOP. House Republicans also ban earmarks, but Senate Democrats have no earmark ban, and House Democrats have a limited one.

It is a sad commentary that shutting down the kind of spending depicted below, which quickly works it's way into the billions, will only be a drop in the bucket of necessary cuts.

Maybe They're Listening

But not this guy, pictured at right, James Inhofe (R-OK).

House Democrats thought they would be clever and ban earmarks going to "for profit" companies. The House Republicans went them one better and voted to eschew ALL earmarks. Amazing what a few protests over wasteful spending can do. This is more than symbolic. According to the Las Vegas Review Journal editorial, 10,000 earmarks a year are worth $16 billion in added spending. Further, Sen Tom Coburn, Inhofe's saner counterpart from Oklahoma had this to say,

"I've long said that earmarks are the gateway drug to spending addiction in Washington," said Sen. Tom Coburn, the Oklahoma Republican who has crusaded against the practice. "Banning earmarks is a long overdue, common sense step that will help Congress win back the trust of the public and tackle our mounting fiscal challenges."

Exactly. Meanwhile tone deaf establishment Republican Inhofe had this to say in rebuttal.

"By refusing to have projects in Oklahoma, you don't save the taxpayers one cent,'' Inhofe said, adding the money will be steered to projects in other states, either by Democrats in Congress or the administration.

Apparently $16 billion is indistinguishable from one cent; somebody's been in Congress way too long. Time for a primary challenge? Too bad, he isn't up for re-election until 2014. This kind of thing drives me nuts, because Inhofe has been a leading voice in the fight against cap and trade and has almost single-handedly ridiculed it to death and put the warmists on notice about their sleazy methods. Hypothetically, if he was up in 2010, would Tea Partyers support a challenge in the primary? My answer is yes, because it might get him to see the light on this issue.

But the mere fact that Dems think they have to cover their back sides on irresponsible spending, when they used to just ignore the issue, is a sure sign the Tea Parties are having an impact.