Facing tough Democratic challengers here in Illinois, Republican Reps. Judy Biggert and Mark Kirk are clearly seeking ways to differentiate themselves from their opponents and appeal to their moderate constituents. As The Politico reported on Friday, earmarks are their chosen target:
Five House Republicans, representing various segments of the party, asked their GOP colleagues Friday not to submit earmark requests this year.
The group includes a top conservative (Republican Study Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling of Texas), an appropriator (Illinois Rep. Mark Kirk), a member of the elected leadership (Chief Deputy Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia) and one of the remaining moderate Republicans in the House (Illinois Rep. Judy Biggert). California Rep. Devin Nunes rounds out the group.
Politically, it's a smart move. The request is voluntary, so it won't require any legislative maneuvering, and the lawmakers can still tell voters they did their best to limit spending in the nation's capital. But at its core, the request is hollow -- not a hard push for fiscal responsibility:
These five lawmakers would like their GOP colleagues to join them by voluntarily forgoing any earmarks this year. But since few expect Congress to finish its spending bills — or President Bush to sign them into law if they include these member-requested projects — this might not be the sacrifice it looks like.
And in the end, the issue of earmarks may not match the GOP rhetoric. Scott Lilly at the Center for American Progress points out that John McCain is using a loose and outdated definition of earmarks to dramatize the problem on the trail.
(More after the jump ...)
From Lilly's article:
In order to get a bigger number, McCain and his staff turned to a three-year-old analysis by the Congressional Research Service, which examined earmarks in the fiscal year 2005 appropriation bills—the year that most people who follow this topic believe the practice of congressional earmarking reached its peak. But the big issue with the CRS analysis is not simply that it is out of date and not reflective of current spending levels, but that the Congressional Research Service used definitions for earmarking that are quite different from other organizations engaged in earmark analysis.
Here's Kevin Drum with more analysis:
The reason McCain made himself vulnerable to this needling is because the two most serious studies of the subject suggest that total spending on earmarks is less than $20 billion — and McCain didn't think that was impressive enough. He needed a bigger number in order to buck up his bona fides as an anti-spending crusader. So he turned to an old CRS report that pegged the earmark number at $52 billion — much better! — but failed to note that it only got there by expanding the definition to include things like aid to Israel, military housing, drug eradication funds for Colombia, assistance programs to Egypt and Jordan, and humanitarian aid to Haiti. Oops.
You can be sure that as the general election heats up, and Kirk and Biggert begin to demagogue on this issue, we'll be carefully watching the numbers they cite.
Post new comment