OK, that was actually a good move

Everyone here knows that I have very little love for Ryan these dahys, but when he does something right, I will give him his props. From the article:

Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) on Wednesday persuaded Republicans to postpone votes on bringing back legislative earmarks until 2017 after reminding members of President-elect Donald Trump’s promise to “drain the swamp” of Washington.

House Republicans were set to hold a secret ballot on changes to their internal conference rules that would have allowed lawmakers to direct spending to projects in their districts under certain circumstances.

Based on what lawmakers were saying in the meeting, “it was likely that an earmark amendment would have passed,” according to a source in the room.
“Ultimately, the Speaker stepped in and urged that we not make this decision today,” the source said.

Behind former Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), Republicans banned earmarks after winning the House in 2010 and have stuck by that policy despite grumbling from both sides of the aisle.

I am glad Ryan put an end to this terrible, terrible idea, and very impressed he did it for the right reason. I am really, really angry that the republican establishment douche-bags thinks it is time to bring back pork barrel spending now that they are in the majority. WTF, have you not glommed that the fact so many people voted for Trump was precisely this sort of statist waste, you fucking idiots?

With the GOP now set to control both Congress and the White House next year, some Republicans are agitating for change.

Reps. John Culberson of Texas, Mike Rogers of Alabama and Tom Rooney of Florida filed an amendment to GOP rules that would ease the earmark ban by creating a new process for targeted spending.

A separate proposal by Rooney that focused more narrowly on Army Corps of Engineers projects appeared to have the votes to pass on Wednesday, several lawmakers said.

Not only no, but hell no. As was pointed out before: no matter how good the original intention of the idea – and I am not saying these people have good intentions at all, and suspect they are teeing this up this way precisely because they can get the votes from others that actually in this one case see this as a good move – it will end up abused.

Short cuts even for what some might believe to be good things, just leaves the door open for others that later come along, to do bad things, as a lot of liberals, driven psychotic because Trump inherited the government machine they just spent the last 8 years weaponizing to force thing their way, are now realizing.

Mo earmarking. Despite all the arguments that it is needed to make some thing move faster, this idiotic practice is all but guaranteed to devolve back into what it was: a machine to allow those that use that practice to collect campaign money by pushing for pork barrel spending at the tax payers expense.

Here is some advice Mr. Ryan: never let this shit come back under the “Drain the swamp” administration. if you do, I am going to assume you did that because you wanted to sabotage this move to defang the establishment.

Comments are closed.

  1. richtaylor365

    I have a little bit different POV on this;

    1)Re: Ryan, I am a bigger fan of him than you. I understood his conflicts (I had the same conflicts) with Trump and was sympathetic to the tight rope he had to walk as an elected official. As a private citizen I could voice my opinion about what a dope I thought Trump was and how wholly unfit he was for the job, Ryan did not have that luxury since he represents a hug wing of the GOP, the wing that was backing Trump, his public pronouncements needed to be more nuanced. And it now appears that they now have common ground and a mutual dedication to working together, something the country needs desperately.

    2) Although bold symbolic gestures has it’s place, I am not a fan, generally, of blanket bans on any type of legislation. Yes, banning all earmarks sounds great, mostly because usually they are wasteful tools to enrich the reputation and cache of the author of the bill, but I would prefer a philosophy and implementation of ,” We are against the  concept of earmarks but will weigh each proposal on it’s own individual merits”. The Sequester was a prime example. Congress admitted that they were unable to agree on the difference between good spending and bad spending (how pathetic, right) so they put themselves on a budget diet for ALL spending. But in doing this, areas that needed a fiscal injection, like some areas of military procurement, went wanting.

    3) If we adopt the proposition that no matter what the government does it will turn out bad ( a POV I wrestle with constantly) then we should just fire them all, send them home and fend for ourselves. Yes, Reagan was right, government is the problem, but we need to fix government, not abolish it. Government has it’s place, we are not advocating anarchy, streamline it, make it more efficient, and make it more respective to the will of the people.


    Thumb up 1

  2. ilovecress

    Ryan did not have that luxury since he represents a hug wing of the GOP, the wing that was backing Trump

    That was a nicely written, well reasoned post. But now I can’t think of anything other than the ‘hug wing‘ of the GOP. Jeb Bush and Rick Perry standing with a sign that says ‘free hugs’. As they say, LOL.

    Thumb up 1

  3. stogy

    Sounds like a good move. Yay! Nice to have some good news at last. Ryan was smart to have done that too, as it makes him look decisive after an election campaign in which he looked anything but. It sends a notice that, at least for the time being, with Congress and the Senate controlled by the Republican party, it will avoid abuse of power and act in the public interest.

    How long this lasts is any one’s guess. Nevertheless, it was a good move.

    Thumb up 0