"I Will Make Them Famous And You Will Know Their Names"

John McCain was adamant in his economic speech [text] yesterday - no new earmarks (let's hope we aren't reading his lips).

He promised to work for a Constitutional line-item veto; pending that he pledged to veto any bill with earmarks and send it back to Congress so they could try again.  Given his self-proclaimed history of never asking for earmarks, he has some credibility on this point.  McCain was also quick to note that neither Hillary nor Barack have been shy about receiving earmarks. 

McCain also promised much greater transparency in the process by which earmarks were requested, saying "I will make them famous and you will know their names".  Barack Obama has also been involved with the effort to provide greater transparency by putting the appropriations process on the internet in a more searchable form, as I recall.

Since there was a popular theory back in November 2006 that Congressional Republicans received their come-uppance due to a loss of fiscal discipline, one might hope that the tough-on-spending McCain will appeal to the economically motivated among the Republican base.

WOULDN'T YOU KNOW:  McCain's "I will make them famous" line was not in his prepared remarks.  Thank heaven for TiVo... uhh, did anyone TiVo that?  I know what I heard!

The relevant passages on spending reform are below.

In so many ways, we need to make a clean break from the worst excesses of both political parties. For Republicans, it starts with reclaiming our good name as the party of spending restraint. Somewhere along the way, too many Republicans in Congress became indistinguishable from the big-spending Democrats they used to oppose. The only power of government that could stop them was the power of veto, and it was rarely used.

If that authority is entrusted to me, I will use the veto as needed, and as the Founders intended. I will veto every bill with earmarks, until the Congress stops sending bills with earmarks. I will seek a constitutionally valid line-item veto to end the practice once and for all. I will lead across-the-board reforms in the federal tax code, removing myriad corporate tax loopholes that are costly, unfair, and inconsistent with a free-market economy.

As president, I will also order a prompt and thorough review of the budgets of every federal program, department, and agency. While that top to bottom review is underway, we will institute a one-year pause in discretionary spending increases with the necessary exemption of military spending and veterans benefits. "Discretionary spending" is a term people throw around a lot in Washington, while actual discretion is seldom exercised. Instead, every program comes with a built-in assumption that it should go on forever, and its budget increase forever. My administration will change that way of thinking.

I'll hold the agencies of the federal government accountable for the money they spend. I'll make sure the public helps me, and I'll provide federal agencies with the best executive leadership that can be found in America. We're going to make every aspect of government purchases and performance transparent. Information on every step of contracts and grants will be posted on the Internet in plain and simple English. We're going to post an agency's performance evaluation as well. We're going to demand accountability. We will make sure that federal spending serves the common interests... that failed programs are not rewarded... and that discretionary spending is going where it belongs -- to essential priorities like job training, the security of our citizens, and the care of our veterans.

In my administration there will be no more subsidies for special pleaders -- no more corporate welfare -- no more throwing around billions of dollars of the people's money on pet projects, while the people themselves are struggling to afford their homes, groceries, and gas. We are going to get our priorities straight in Washington -- a clean break from years of squandered wealth and wasted chances.

I have a clear record of not asking for earmarks for my state. For their part, Senators Obama and Clinton have championed a long list of pork-barrel projects for their states -- like that all-important Woodstock museum that Senator Clinton expected Americans to pay for at the cost of a million dollars. That kind of careless spending of tax dollars is not change, my friends: It is business as usual in Washington, and it's all a part of the same wasteful and corrupting system that we need to end.

Comments

[Jane]

Good for him. Earmarks are my second most important issue. It's just congressional stealing from my perspective. McCain should have them all frog-marched from the Congress.

[Miracle Max]

The fantastical act of eliminating all earmarks will roughly offset the cost of repealing the gas tax this summer.

Meanwhile JMC's cornucopia of tax cuts will double the deficit hole created by G Bush. How will Johnny pay for Social Security and Medicare?

[DebinNC]

I'm one of the voters the Republicans lost in 2006 because of profligate spending. A look back to Aug. 2006, and Sen. Ted Stevens (R):

After much speculation, a staffer to Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, admitted to Cox Newspapers today that the senator is the lawmaker who placed a “secret hold” on legislation that would open up the obscure world of government contracting to public scrutiny. Until now, it was a political whodunnit as to who quietly blocked legislation introduced by Sens. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., and Barack Obama, D-Ill., that would create a searchable database of government contracts, grants, insurance, loans and financial assistance, worth $2.5 trillion last year." ...The bill has support from heavy hitters like Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y. It was on the fast track for floor action before Congress recessed on Aug. 4 when Stevens put a hold on the measure."

[DebinNC]

From Hot Air: Criminal pork? from Mr. Bridge to Nowhere himself.

"In what may become the first formal request from Congress for a criminal inquiry into one of its own special projects, top Senate Democrats and Republicans have endorsed taking action in connection with the earmark that Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), former chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, inserted into the legislation."

Words fail me.

[Jane]

I've got the words: Try him and if he is guilty, jail him for a long long time.

[Cecil Turner]

I really don't know much about this, but a couple things spring to mind. First, why is the Senate pushing this off to DOJ? Not sure whether the congressional privilege extends to this sort of thing, but it's hard to believe anyone who can even contend that it remotely relates to the Jefferson bribe (and there were many who claimed it did) . . . and yet doesn't cover this. In any event, it'd seem to be primarily a lawmakers' responsibility, and the only logical reason I can see why they wouldn't tackle it, is because it'd be perceived as partisan. Hence I suspect that's exactly what it is.

Second, the stories variously claim or suggest the earmark was "inserted" after the vote. But the contemporary coverage suggests it was already in the bill, and just changed afterward (i.e., to specify a certain interchange, instead of a generic statement about improvements along I-75). If it was what lawmakers had discussed (and hence more like a typo), then changing it might be technically improper, but it's hardly a big deal. Seems to me the devil's in the details, and those most actively finger-pointing are obfuscating the actual issue.

Bottom line: I need to see something more before getting too excited on this one.

[battery]

Bottom line: I need to see something more before getting too excited on this one.

[sophy]

I do not know how to use the wakfu money ; my friend tells me how to use.