One of the top requests from free-spending establishment Republicans and Democrats is something Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) is thinking about giving.
Johnson is apparently aiming to increase earmarks after handily defeating conservatives on government financing, unwarranted snooping on Americans, and helping Ukraine.
Following Rep. Kay Granger’s (R-TX) retirement in March, Johnson personally selected Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK) to lead the House Appropriations Committee. Politico writes that Cole wants to “unlock the prospect of additional earmarks.”
According to the site, Cole wants to utilize earmarks more frequently. This may open up hundreds of millions of dollars in earmarks in the mammoth Labor-HHS-Education budget package, which is the largest non-defense funding measure. In 2023, the House will prohibit earmarks in the budget bill.
Cole expressed his viewpoint clearly, saying Johnson would make the final decision. “I will be supporting whatever the speaker comes back with,” Cole declared.
Naturally, if Johnson is still in charge, it is absurd for him to choose Cole to lead the influential appropriations committee, given that Cole was his personal choice—if Johnson is really in charge. If Cole’s first big project after receiving the gavel was not a hit with Johnson, it does not seem plausible that Johnson would appoint Cole.
Johnson’s action also coincides with a lot of conjecture about possible assurances he gave to Democrats to keep him safe in the event that he moved to approve funds for Ukraine.
The pressure from Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) to remove Johnson due to his disloyalty to the conservative group that propelled Johnson to the speakership has been intensifying. However, Democrats are openly pledging to keep Johnson as speaker after Johnson handed House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) and President Joe Biden the victory following the election year.
Furthermore, why not? While Johnson is in charge, Democrats are reaping the benefits of the majority without taking on any accountability.
Johnson made history by collaborating with Democrats to establish a procedural rule that allowed the adoption of funding for Ukraine. Democrats set the agenda for the House floor despite being in the minority, since more Democrats than Republicans supported that rule.
Following the Republican Tea Party takeover in 2011, House Republicans outlawed the practice of earmarking. The “bridge to nowhere” in Alaska served as the most prominent example of the practice’s long-standing association with extravagant pork barrel expenditures.
Yet in March 2021, Rep. Mike Rogers (R-AL) presented a motion to reinstate the practice, and House Republicans rejected it 102–84.
Granger, along with several other appropriators, is among the 25 establishment obstinates who have contributed to the present disarray in the House. In October 2023, Granger prevented Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), the conference’s nominee to succeed Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), from taking the floor.
Proponents of earmarks argue that the procedure gives Congressmen, who are meant to be the most knowledgeable about the needs of their districts, the ability to decide which local initiatives the federal government may fund with public funds.
However, many earmarks supporters acknowledged instances of system misuse.
In actuality, earmarks provide leaders with an effective instrument to force doubting senators to approve enormous spending plans worth billions of dollars. When lawmakers’ districts share in the spoils, they have an incentive to ignore the fiscal prudence tenets of their campaign programs.
With the next fiscal year starting on October 1, the Appropriations Committee has limited time to draft all twelve of the spending measures. Congress took about six months longer than expected to complete the law for the current fiscal year, finishing it in late March.
Comments are closed.