Democrats are trying desperately to get out from under their ethical cloud. In fact they’re so desperate that that they are actually considering a ban on earmarks — but only a ban on earmarks for for-profit companies. (Which wouldn’t have stopped the Cornhusker Kickback, the Gator-Aid, or the Lousiana Purchase — the three most recent, pernicious and expensive examples of earmarking, used to pass the Senate’s health care reform bill.)
But it seems even that half-measure is too much for some Democrats who really, really like their pork:
Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), the chairman of the Senate’s Appropriations Committee, slammed House Appropriations Chairman David Obey’s (D-Wis.) moratorium on earmarks to for-profit companies mere hours after Obey announced it on Wednesday.
Inouye’s decision puts House Democratic leaders in an awkward position and could create a protracted fight over the fiscal 2011 spending bills. …
Just hours later, Inouye argued “it does not make sense” to exclude for-profit companies from congressional earmarks.
“I don’t believe this policy or ceding authority to the executive branch on any spending decision is in the best interests of the Congress or the American people,” Inouye said in a statement. “I am not sure why we should treat for-profit earmarks any differently than nonprofit earmarks.”
Though focus here is on Democratic infighting, it should also be noted that the GOP’s ranking member on the Senate Appropriations Committee, Thad Cochran of Mississippi, is also against the earmark ban. I imagine this doesn’t sit well with certain members of his own caucus, particularly Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., and Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., who have long pushed for an end to earmarking.
