The conservative Wall Street Journal editorial board doesn't seem impressed by former interim Majority Leader Roy Blunt's efforts to reign in spending during his watch.
The board says current Majority Leader John Boehner -- who, in an upset, beat out Blunt for the top post last February -- is at least moving in the right direction.
This from Tuesday's WSJ editorial:
As Republicans lurch toward November, they're trying to reclaim their birthright as fiscal conservatives. So far they're moved up to a D from an F, with a chance to still grab a gentleman's C.
In the small favors department, the House this month passed an "earmark" reform to bring more transparency to the runaway process of sticking pork into appropriations bills.
Give House Majority Leader John Boehner credit for staring down his party's Appropriations Committee barons on this one; that's more than Tom DeLay or Roy Blunt ever did when they ran the majority.
Lawmakers will now have to sign their names to earmark requests, although the loopholes in this requirement are still large. The rule applies only to non-federal earmark recipients, which means that pet projects aimed at, say, the Department of Defense will still be secret. The definition of a "tax earmark" was also deliberately kept narrow, shielding many of those expensive giveaways.
4 comments:
All the cows eat out of the same troff(?) So Marcus the socialist I'm sorry democrats do the same thing. If you do not believe that then I got some ocean front property for you at a good price. Lets keep it real and speculate less. All politicians in the two big parties are bought and paid for. Election aren't cheap you know. You want real government then you need to change your vote and vote third party.
I was never on the ticket. It was an error on the ethics commision report that made some believe that. I dabbled on running as a republican because I wanted to win, but my morals and good sense convinced me otherwise. When I worked as a staffer in Jefferson City Jetton took a 30,000 dollar check from the porn industry and I said no way will I be a part of that, because that money is now being funnled to, in the air districts like 137th. I wanted no part of that. So I collected the needed signatures to run as an independent but withdrew because of my cancer. I am only now running as a write in because there is no pro life or pro family candidate on the ballot. I meant everything I said in that post. As I have said I worked on the inside and I know how much $$$ was tossed around to both parties. They are bought and paid for. Sure the Dems are all about the people, but the constitution does not allow the government to be a safety net. That is called communism. Small limited governemnt is what the founder's like Jefferson wanted. We now have a huge central government that taxes us to death and is the real cause of the poverty we see.
Union members should be able to decide how a portion of their dues are spent on political actions.
Of course, unions are against this, b/c they don't want one less dime going to the DNC, should non-Dem union members decide who THEY want to support.
There's one more to add to the pile.
Did no one notice that the headline of this post should have said "rein" in and not "reign" in? Then again, that may have been appropriate word usage after all, considering this Congress.
Post a Comment