House Republicans renew voluntary earmark ban

WASHINGTON Thu Nov 18, 2010 12:02pm EST

Senator John McCain stands next to a graph depicting the increase of earmarks in Congress during a 2006 press conference. Credit: Reuters/Kevin Lamarque

Senator John McCain stands next to a graph depicting the increase of earmarks in Congress during a 2006 press conference. Credit: Reuters/Kevin Lamarque

Related Topics

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republicans in the House of Representatives on Thursday adopted a voluntary ban on pet projects known as earmarks when they take control of the chamber in January from President Barack Obama's Democrats.

The action came two days after Senate Republicans announced a voluntary ban, prompting Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid to say he would allow a vote on a binding moratorium.

Reid made the offer even though he and lawmakers in both parties have long favored earmarks to deliver a variety of projects to their home states.

Republicans have now forsworn earmarks as they eye large spending cuts in the coming year, when they will control the House and have more clout in the Democratic-led Senate after November's congressional elections.

"Earmarks have become a symbol of a Congress that has broken faith with the people," said House Republican Leader John Boehner, who is set to become the chamber's new speaker in January, replacing Democrat Nancy Pelosi.

Boehner, who has long opposed earmarks, said the House ban "shows the American people we are listening and we are dead serious about ending business as usual in Washington."

Although earmarks account for less than one half of a percent of the federal budget, they have become a symbol of wasteful spending for many grassroots "Tea Party" activists who helped Republicans win big in the November 2 elections.

Earmarks have accounted for roughly $16 billion of the $3.5 trillion federal budget in recent years. Reid and other backers say they are a way to ensure that Congress maintains some control over federal spending that otherwise would be managed by government agencies.

Democrats have sought to rein in earmarks in recent years after they factored in several corruption scandals, although they have not backed an outright ban.

An earmark ban could worsen congressional gridlock as they often serve as sweeteners to build support for the large spending bills that are needed to keep the government running, according to Thomas Stratmann, an economics professor at George Mason University.

Republicans reject such talk and have urged President Barack Obama, who favors curbing earmarks, to veto any bill that contains them.

(Reporting by Thomas Ferraro and Andy Sullivan; Editing by Bill Trott)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see
Comments (5)
loumiller wrote:
I have enough brain cells to remember the Gingrich Revolution and the Contract With America. Earmarks were under control until that Republican takeover of Congress and then they started going through the roof. I’ll believe this voluntary plan is going to bring down earmarks when it happens. And, excuse me, earmarks are an extremely small part of the budget and their total elimination will do little to reduce the deficit. This is pure political grandstanding.

Nov 18, 2010 11:37am EST  --  Report as abuse
andrewhorning wrote:
…Voluntary ban? …Like the voluntary term limits the GOP touted in 1994?
Oh boy; here we go again…

Nov 18, 2010 11:51am EST  --  Report as abuse
GeyeJo wrote:
It may be voluntary, but the Republicans are stepping up to the plate and forcing a binding moratorium. That’s where we find out which representatives care at all for this country or are entirely their for their own hide. Let’s see what the DemocRats do…

“Earmarks” are more than just the riders Congress attaches to bills. There is over 1/2 a trillion dollars in non-security related “discretionary” spending, which is pork that needs to be cut out of the budget. Don’t let the media or Washington fool you – there is much more room for savings that don’t involve cutting controversial topics like defense, health or social security.

Nov 18, 2010 12:54pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.