This marks the launch of The Next Right's newest feature: Earmark Alert. We'll be collecting clips of the most outrageous earmark news from across the country -- the stuff you likely haven't heard about on the blogs -- and presenting it in a digestible format. We hope to use this information to inform the grassroots and build pressure on the GOP to stand up for real earmark reform. I hope to do this several times per week, if not daily at times. Success will be when this feature becomes obsolete.
Let's get started. Our first story's a doozy: the #3 Democrat in the House caught red handed earmarking to $6.2 million to his nephew, and groups that employ his daughter and sister-in-law:
MYRTLE BEACH — South Carolina Rep. James Clyburn has earmarked millions of taxpayer dollars this decade for projects that could directly benefit his friends and family members, a newspaper reported Sunday.
The Sun News of Myrtle Beach found that Clyburn has set aside at least $6.2 million for such projects.
That includes money for two projects his nephew was to help design, a community center that runs a program employing his sister-in-law and a Columbia wellness center that employs his daughter.
At least he didn't try to get a loan from Countrywide Financial.
There's more. Read on.
<!--break-->
Main Street and the Tuesday Group (read: House GOP moderates) don't want to do earmark reform:
Some moderate Republicans plan to meet Tuesday with John A. Boehner , R-Ohio, to urge the minority leader not to issue edicts that might undermine moderates’ ability to vote in sync with prevailing sentiment in their districts.
An aide to one Republican lawmaker said the moderates want Boehner and the party to focus on gasoline price increases rather than on earmarks, a proposal for a two-tier flat tax or a proposed constitutional amendment to curb the growth of federal spending — all of which are being pushed by the RSC and are embraced by Boehner’s leadership team.
Thankfully, Illinois moderate Mark Steven Kirk (who faces a tough re-elect fight in Obama country) ain't buying, though RSC member / appropriator Jack Kingston (R-GA) is giving cover to the moderates:
But other moderates are straddling the fence and joining forces with more cautious conservatives like appropriator Jack Kingston of Georgia, an RSC member who argues that the best strategy is to focus on bipartisan proposals to address the gas price issue with increased oil and gas drilling. “Shifting the focus to an earmark moratorium right now could step on the energy message,’’ said Kingston.
That's disappointing. Kingston had broken with his fellow appropriators to push an earmark moratorium in the spring, but is apparently back to his old ways. The House GOP should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. Gas prices are the Democrats' Katrina and earmarks are their "culture of corruption." (Via Next Right contributor Matt Hurley.)
Over at Fidelis, Josh Mercer strongly implies that if the RSC wants support for an earmark moratorium, it should be more outspoken on social issues:
Don’t get me wrong, I think John McCain and conservatives in the House are right to emphasize earmark reform and cutting wasteful spending. In 2006, Republicans lost in part because our “brand” was tarnished by the Bridge to Nowhere and the scandals of several Congressmen.
McCain and the conservatives at the Republican Study Committee seemed focused on pocketbook issues alone. With the economy sputtering, I understand. But Americans also vote their values.
Conservatives on Capitol Hill need to start aggressively courting social conservatives if they want to win in November. Right now, the Republican Study Committee looks like they’re lagging behind on pushing a social conservative agenda. Since they applauded the Right to Life march in January, their media shop has been radio silent on pro-life issues.
I've got some mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I hate it when our groups try to play for leverage like this. It's inexcusable for social issue groups to try and torpedo great conservative reforms like personal accounts or an earmark ban just because social issues aren't being pushed instead.
On the other hand, fiscal conservatives need to understand effective coalition politics. Some members, and especially donors, don't like to talk about social issues -- even though the late '90s / early 2000s concern about them sinking our hopes with independents has been way, way overblown and they were a net positive in 2004. A more ecumenical agenda that includes strong fiscal, social, and defense components would likely grease the skids for conservative economic reform.
When we polled Next Right readers on what kind of conservative (or libertarian) they were, over 50% rejected any sort of label to describe their conservatism. At the grassroots level, we are just plain conservatives -- not fiscal conservatives or social conservatives. Sometimes, it seems our groups don't understand this. Virtually all of them are organized around one leg of the stool, jockeying to get "their" issues a hearing. The grassroots rejects this single issue mindset.
I'd love to have Josh on here to further elaborate on his position, as well as someone from the RSC. This is a really important discussion.