Even as they force through massive new tax and spending increases, Democrats are trying to demonstrate their fiscal responsibility by proposing to eliminate congressional earmarks, except for nonprofit organizations (which is the majority of earmarks).
Their efforts would be more believable had they not pushed through, with zero Republican support, a pay-as-you-go, or "paygo," provision last February that requires Congress to pay for any new spending increases. Because just three weeks later they completely ignored their paygo rule to pass a $10 billion jobs bill--without a "payfor."
Actions belie words.
House Republicans have countered by proposing a moratorium on all earmarks.
Then Republican Senator Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma piped up in The Wall Street Journal claiming earmark control was much ado about nothing. Earmarks only amounted to 1.5 percent of discretionary spending.
So who's right?
First, let's recall how the budget process works. Budget and appropriations chairmen call their committee members on both sides and ask what they need in a spending bill to support it. The chairmen may include much of those requests, which then get turned into earmarks--and support from the majority of members.
In other words, the process artificially inflated spending. If there were no earmarks, spending might be much lower to begin with. And without nearly every congressman having a vested interest in passing a budget loaded with his own earmarks, members might be more willing to cut spending.