GOP wants earmark moratorium

NY Times:

House Republicans called on Friday for “an immediate moratorium” on earmarking money for pet projects. They urged Democrats to join them in establishing a bipartisan panel to set strict new standards for such spending.

As an interim step, House Republican leaders said, they will insist that all House Republicans follow standards to eliminate “wasteful pork-barrel spending.”

Republicans set forth their intentions in a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The letter reflects a fragile consensus reached Friday after more than two hours of impassioned debate among House Republicans, who met behind closed doors at their annual conference at the Greenbrier resort in White Sulphur Springs, W.Va.

...

Forging a consensus was no easy task. Some House Republicans oppose all earmarks, saying they tend to corrupt the legislative process.

Representative Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona, said he told his colleagues on Friday: “We should have an immediate moratorium on earmarks. We should not wait for the Democrats.”

Other House Republicans said it would be foolish to surrender any of the power vested in Congress under the Constitution to decide how money is spent.

Lawmakers quoted Representative Joe L. Barton, Republican of Texas, as saying House Republicans should not engage in “unilateral disarmament.” Senators of both parties are likely to continue earmarking money for pet projects.

Representative Mike Pence, Republican of Indiana, said, “I still believe House Republicans should embrace an immediate one-year moratorium on earmark spending, even if the Democrats don’t join us.”

But Mr. Pence added: “By challenging Speaker Pelosi to join us in ending earmarks as usual in Washington, House Republicans have thrown down the gauntlet of reform.”

...

House Republicans have been extraordinarily effective as a minority party. They have constantly put the Democrats on the defensive on issue after issue and this is another example of that. The only place earmarks are popular is in Congress itself. The process has a built in conflict of interest.