Senate Rejects Earmarking Ban By Wide Margin


Senate rejects earmarking ban by wide marginThe Senate has overwhelmingly rejected a conservative Republican measure that would have temporarily banned lawmakers from earmarking spending bills with provisions for state-sponsored projects, such as roads or grants for local governments, the Associated Press (AP) reports. The final vote was 68-29 in favor of disallowing the moratorium on earmarks.

The Senate’s dismissal of prohibiting earmarks comes only a few days after the House implemented two separate, partisan bans on excess spending. Last week, Democratic House leaders announced an indefinite restriction on budget earmarks to for-profit entities.

One day later, House Republicans trumped the Democrats’ pledge by vowing to eliminate all earmarking for at least one full year.

"Republicans took an important step toward showing the American people we’re serious about reform by adopting an immediate, unilateral ban on all earmarks," said House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio).

"But the more difficult battle lies ahead, and that’s stopping the spending spree in Washington that is saddling our children and grandchildren with trillions of dollars in debt," he added.

Meanwhile, some Democrats have criticized the decision to temporarily prohibit earmarking, including Representative Mark Schauer (D-Mich.), who referred to the move a simple attempt to score "cheap political points," according to

Personal Liberty

Special To Personal Liberty

You Sound Off! is written by our readers and appears the last Wednesday of each month. If you would like to submit an article or letter to the editor for consideration for You Sound Off!, send it to by the Friday before the last Wednesday of the month. To be considered, a submission should be 750 words or less and must include the writer's name, address and a telephone number. Only the writer's name will be published. Anonymous submissions will not be considered.

Join the Discussion

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.