A Letter from Sen Inhofe
Yesterday afternoon I received a formal response to this letter/post from Senator Inhofe. Enjoy
Dear [Kelly]:
Thank you for taking the time to share with me your thoughts about earmarks. I appreciate you taking the time to do so.
In light of our estimated $1.5 trillion deficit and nearly $13 trillion debt load, fiscal discipline has finally become a serious topic of discussion here in Washington. Unfortunately, President Obama and Congressional Democrats have turned a blind eye to these massive fiscal problems. In his most recent budget proposal, President Obama requested a staggering $3.8 trillion in spending, which includes proposals that will double our national debt in five years and triple it in ten. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the country will be spending $800 billion each year on interest payments by 2020. If we do the math on that number it amounts to about $7,000 per household – and it is solely for the purpose of paying interest on our national debt. We get nothing back in return. This is unacceptable.
Some have pointed to earmarks as a root cause of runaway government spending, but I fundamentally disagree with this argument. Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution gives the power of the purse to Congress, explicitly designating Congress with the power to determine how and where to direct government resources. Earmarks can be defined in a number of ways, but in their simplest form they are specific, congressional instructions for how the executive branch should use taxpayer dollars. This is one of Congress’ most important constitutional responsibilities.
Additionally, when earmarks go through the correct congressional authorization process, they do not increase spending by a nickel. Before earmarks are even considered, the “top line” budget for the federal government is determined. This “top line” is the aggregate amount that the government plans to spend during a set timeframe. It is within this budget, not in addition to it, that earmarks direct government spending. In fact, when Congress does not specifically designate which projects to fund, the appropriated money is turned over to the executive branch to spend in any way it sees fit. In other words, the money is given to President Obama to fund his own pet projects. Because of this, earmarks actually improve the ability of Congress to do its job by providing a check on executive branch power and by determining where federal dollars should be spent.
As with everything in government, there are exceptions to this rule. From time to time earmarks are inserted into legislation without going through the official congressional authorization process. I support a permanent moratorium of these earmarks. Doing so would increase congressional scrutiny and reduce the potential for corruption. In light of this, earmarks need to be clearly defined before any discussions about moratoriums take place.
Earmarks aside, our government has a serious spending problem, and reducing the top line of spending is the only realistic solution. To help address this need I recently introduced S. 3095, The Honest Expenditure Limitation Program (HELP) Act of 2010. This bill would take President Obama’s proposed spending freeze to a new and effective level. Rather than simply freezing discretionary spending at non-security agencies at current levels (as the President’s proposal does), my bill would reduce that spending to FY2008 levels over a period of five years, at which point it would be capped through FY2020. My bill currently has 19 cosponsors. By my conservative estimation, my initiative would save American taxpayers over $887 billion over the next ten years. That amounts to more than $600 billion in additional savings when compared to the President’s proposal. I offered my bill as an amendment to recent legislation considered in the Senate. Although my amendment attracted bipartisan support, it failed by a vote of 41-56 on March 18, 2010.
Despite this setback, there are many other proposals with my support that would return federal spending to sustainable levels as well. One such proposal is Senator DeMint’s (R-SC) Senate Joint Resolution 27 (S.J. Res. 27). This resolution proposes a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution and would bring permanent fiscal responsibility to Washington.
These are the types of reform that should be pursued to bring spending under control. We should not, however, hand over more spending decisions to the Executive branch with a non-defined earmark moratorium. Doing so would violate the spirit of the Constitution consolidating more power under the executive branch.
Thank you again for taking the time to contact me. Please do not hesitate to do so again in the future.
Sincerely,
James M. Inhofe
United States Senator
I must say, when I first heard about his opposition to the “earmark ban”, I was less than pleased, which is why I wrote the original letter to Senator Inhofe. That same day I created the original post on my website and received a response via twitter (which you can see at the post linked above), but didn’t understand exactly what he was talking about.
I think I understand it a lot more now, and based on this new information, agree that cutting the “top line” would be the best course of action.
As Thomas Jefferson said:
A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned – this is the sum of good government.
Here’s hoping Congress gains wisdom and frugality…
BTW – Senator Inhofe, thank you for the response. I greatly appreciate it.
Kelly
About the author
- More at
Related Posts:
Categories: Oklahoma, Politics
« Liberals, YouTube – YouTube, Liberals | Home | No Morons Allowed! »
Editor's Note: I am a firm believer that "free speech" and "popular speech" are not always the same thing. If you have something to say, let it fly! However, I do ask that you be as courteous as possible (we're talking politics a lot of the time so I understand if you get "hot under the collar"), keep it as clean as possible and try to stay on topic
TROLLS WILL BE BANNED!
Posts are moderated, as long as there is some merit to your comment, it will be approved as quickly as I possibly can.
Thank you
June 30th, 2010 at 11:24 PM
[...] I have long supported you. Recently I questioned you regarding earmark spending, and after hearing your response I publicly (on my blog) apologized to you for the misunderstanding and realized that you did have [...]