Wittman swears off earmarks
Congressman Rob Wittman (R-VA01) has decided that he will no longer consider submitting earmarks, says Virginia Virtucon.
Under his new policy which went into effect in December, the only earmarks that he will request will be for national defense and he must first receive a request from the federal agency seeking it before he will even consider submitting it. All localities within the First District have now been notified as to the change as such requests from them will no longer be considered.
Frankly, when I first saw this on VV, I was quite surprised that Wittman would take such an action – after all, earmarks can be, when done correctly, a very principled way of fighting for funding for a district.
“We simply can’t carve out a portion of the budget for a particular entity anymore,” wrote Tom Crosson, Wittman’s spokesman. “We will however be working to secure grant funding as well as finding other avenues to bring dollars to the 1st outside of the earmark process. Grants are the way most of the science and technology groups in our district receive dollars currently.”
Wittman is not alone, however, as several other congressmen have made the same pledge, including Senators Jim DeMint and Tom Colburn, as well as Representatives Paul Ryan, Joe Wilson, Jim Sensenbrenner, Marsha Blackburn, Dan Burton, among others.
The question is is this effective, principled policy or putting your district at a disadvantage?
Additionally, our Congress has operated this way for nearly 210 years. If we believe that the Founders were right in how they set this system up, is tinkering with the appropriations process the right thing to do when you consider small states checking larger states, etc.?
Category: Government
Loading ...
Great job Wittman!
Congressman Wittman is showing real Republican leadership! Give’em hell!
I have only known of Congressman Wittman for a short time, my involvement has always been in the Tidewater area and less on the Peninsula.
But its encouraging to see public officials like him.
This statement is a little misleading:
“he must first receive a request from the federal agency seeking it before he will even consider submitting it.”
From my understanding, federal agencies cannot submit a request for an earmark because that’s consider lobbying and the agencies cannot officially lobby for earmarks. So in effect Wittman’s saying he’ll only request earmarks that federal agencies ask for and ignoring that agencies can’t ask for earmarks.
“only earmarks that he will request will be for national defense”
Well considering that the defense contractor lobbyists for Lockheed-Martin, General Dynamics, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, and the major’s subs supply a large percentage of campaign contributions one can see why he excluded defense. What is this? A statement of frugality or an advertisement for more contributions?
Congressman, you can’t un-ring a bell, and a new Republican needs to seize and replace your tattered banner that no longer flies high.
Marsha Blackburn Voted FOR:
Omnibus Appropriations, Special Education, Global AIDS Initiative, Job Training, Unemployment Benefits, Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations, Agriculture Appropriations, U.S.-Singapore Trade, U.S.-Chile Trade, Supplemental Spending for Iraq & Afghanistan, Prescription Drug Benefit, Child Nutrition Programs, Surface Transportation, Job Training and Worker Services, Agriculture Appropriations, Foreign Aid, Vocational/Technical Training, Supplemental Appropriations, UN “Reforms.” Patriot Act Reauthorization, CAFTA, Katrina Hurricane-relief Appropriations, Head Start Funding, Line-item Rescission, Oman Trade Agreement, Military Tribunals, Electronic Surveillance, Head Start Funding, COPS Funding, Funding the REAL ID Act (National ID), Foreign Intelligence Surveillance, Thought Crimes “Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, Peru Free Trade Agreement, Economic Stimulus, Farm Bill (Veto Override), Warrantless Searches, Employee Verification Program, Body Imaging Screening.
Marsha Blackburn Voted AGAINST:
Ban on UN Contributions, eliminate Millennium Challenge Account, WTO Withdrawal, UN Dues Decrease, Defunding the NAIS, Iran Military Operations defunding Iraq Troop Withdrawal, congress authorization of Iran Military Operations.
Marsha Blackburn is my Congressman.
See her unconstitutional votes at :
http://tinyurl.com/qhayna
Mickey
Wally Erb – what bell does he need to unring? Are you saying that he exempted defense because they are contributors in general or to him? I can assure you sir that such a thing is not in keeping with Congressman Wittman’s character as I have come to know him. Did it ever occur to you that because the Congressman sits on the Armed Forces committee and because national defense impacts the NATION as a whole, not just a particular slice of the nation, that this is a legitimate area in which to request funding? As for another Republican needing to replace him – the 1st district could not ask for a better congressman, and it is my guess that you are one of those perennial malcontents who are never satisfied with the state of things as they are, always looking for something to have a problem with. If you have a particular concern, might I suggest contacting the Congressman’s office, either locally or in DC – I am sure they would be happy to address your questiong.
JR – you left John McCain off your list, doesn’t he also refuse to put in earmarks? Or was that just during the 2008 campaign
Oh – and one more thing, to JR’s parting question on the founders. This would have been a non-issue, because to them the limits of the federal government (and thus funding) are not what we consider them today. The idea that the government would be funding and therefore responsible for things like technology development and other private industry is not in keeping with their way of thinking. Government spending is limited to the legitimate powers of governemnt, things like treasury, military and post office. Remember that when the founders wrote the Constitution the only means of raising revenue were through import and export taxes, there was no income tax, so the government did not have a lot of money to throw around, and the people did not need it because they got to keep it to begin with. Even Jefferson questioned whether he had the right to ask Congress to purchase the Louisiana territory from France – so the mindset was completely different.
Well, Govgirl, no I’m not a malcontent nor am I fooled by rhetoric that is shallow regardless what political label one carries. That is my opinion. Either you believe in earmarks or you don’t. Needless statements to reconcile what one says they will do, when the individual has a past of irresponsible transgressions (“earmarks”), (and hence the ringing of the bell) am I supposed to believe they have had an epiphany? Sorry Govgirl, this is an insult to one’s intelligence. Newport News will still do very well with the millions requested for “defense” such as the earmarks for Jefferson Labs. I am just not impressed by empty pledges, nor should you.
Me thinks the congressman is running scared. What else explains his lurch toward fiscal responsibility as he approaches an election year? I love how these politicians think they can make-nice and pretend to have a backbone when their number is up.
As for his character, I have plenty of personal experience with which to differ.
Sic Sempre Tyrannis – taken a look at his voting record lately? And what would be running scared from, the obamacare loving liberals running against him? I think not, he does not need to move right to defeat anyone.
Wally Erb – So you do not believe that he will now keep his word to not submit earmarks? I disagree – Wittman does what he says he will do, simple, I have complete confidence that if he says no more earmarks, he means no more earmarks. Maybe this confidence on my part comes from personal experience that you do not have and I hope that you will be open to being proved wrong. As to why this change in policy, not sure, I will ask next time I see him. You could also ask, I find that I get fairly swift responses from his office.
Wittman is a follower, NOT a leader. He has an 80% conservative voting record. Try telling your spouse you will be 80% faithful.
I get “fairly swift responses” also. A lot of talk saying nothing, standing for nothing, and leading no where at all. He will do what he is told.
Govgirl is certainly right that Whitman has no reason to be afraid of the coming election. The 1st District, as currently drawn, can not be won by a Democrat.
This Whitman policy isn’t really new, he effectively announced this last spring. It does make you wonder if the district will be at a competivive disadvantage with others around the country. And although defense spending is certainly an important components of the economy in the First, there are other area’s where it might be shortchanged. For instance, Colonial Heritage National Park might lose money to other national partks whose Congressman do initiate earmarks.
In the great scheme of things, the earmakrs issue is largly symbolic. The earmarks make up a relatively tiny percentage of what Congress spends.
So – I would you like an answer to the change right from the horses mouth so to speak? Wittman says that the change in policy comes from the realization that Congress will never vote to reduce budget spending in keeping with the earmark requests. After two years of attempting to propose offsetting earmark/reductions and then an across the board decrease in a projected spending increase for just one appropriations bill. After being unable to offset his requested earmarks either way, he has determined the only other course of action is to not request them at all – save in areas where he has a Constitutional responsibility such as national defense. Oh, and for those saying it is about campaign donations, defense corporations can’t request them either.
Sic Sempre Tyrannis – by who’s scale are you determining that he only votes conservative 80% of the time?
If I were to make a determination based on a Constitutional scale he would not rate at all. Consequently, the 80% “conservative vote” is generous indeed.
Govgirl: Earmarks have been falling, as a percentage of federal funding. In 2002, they represented about 2%, they’ve been falling since.
Also, although many seem to think that each earmark means more money appropriated, that’s not in fact the case. Many earmarks instruct a federal agency exactly how to spend money that has already been appropriated. In these cases, where spending decisions that would otherwisse be made by “unelected federal bureacrats” are instead dictated by our elected representatives, I’d assume conservatives would approve?
Steve – not sure where you get your information on earmarks, but that is not how they were specifically discussed by the Congressman or his staff. So in this sense, it is not the specific allocation of moneys that are already sitting there, they are additional spending. Maybe it is an issue of symantics and maybe not – I am just telling you what they are calling an earmark.
Sic Sempre Tyrannis – that is not the question I asked you. By who’s scale is he 80%? Your own, a conservative watch dog group? Also, who’s Constitutional scale? I mean, if you ask most Dems they think they are acting Constitutionally and that conservatives are not, so that does not help either. If you are going to make the claim, pony up with the evidence or at least the standard by which you are measuring.
These links will show different “Score Cards”. You can make your own determination based on what you feel reflects conservative values:
http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=58133
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=412255
http://www.ontheissues.org/VA/Robert_Wittman
We are not going to agree on this issue Govgirl. Neither party, with the sole exception of Ron Paul, takes their Sacred Oath of office seriously. To minimize the Constitution and the Sacred Oath that was meant to safe guard it is what has gotten us where we are today. I’m longing for a leader not a yes-man for the Republicans. Where is Patrick Henry when you need him?
Sic Semper Tyrannis: Last time I checked, Wittman was rated at 92% by the American Conservative Union, the oldest conservative rating system in the nation.