Comments on: Wittman swears off earmarks

By: VAConservative

VAConservative — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 18:42:29 +0000

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.

By: Sic Semper Tyrannis

Sic Semper Tyrannis — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 19:53:21 +0000

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?

By: Govgirl

Govgirl — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 02:02:08 +0000

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.

By: Govgirl

Govgirl — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 01:59:00 +0000

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.

By: Steve Vaughan

Steve Vaughan — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:13:23 +0000

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?

By: Sic Semper Tyrannis

Sic Semper Tyrannis — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 19:30:59 +0000

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.

By: GovGirl

GovGirl — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 18:11:44 +0000

Sic Sempre Tyrannis – by who’s scale are you determining that he only votes conservative 80% of the time?

By: GovGirl

GovGirl — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 18:10:43 +0000

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.

By: Steve Vaughan

Steve Vaughan — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 15:57:02 +0000

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.

By: Sic Semper Tyrannis

Sic Semper Tyrannis — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 04:11:37 +0000

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.

By: Govgirl

Govgirl — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 22:25:06 +0000

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.

By: Sic Semper Tyrannis

Sic Semper Tyrannis — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 21:45:21 +0000

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.

By: Wally Erb

Wally Erb — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 19:14:59 +0000

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.

By: Govgirl

Govgirl — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 18:50:25 +0000

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.

By: Govgirl

Govgirl — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 18:32:55 +0000

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