DeMint stars in Moyers report on how Dems killed earmark reform

Here's something that will jar a few of your preconceived notions (at least, among those who were so dismissive of Bill Moyers a while back as a liberal shill): It's a Bill Moyers report on PBS that calls Democratic leaders to task for double-crossing Jim DeMint and deep-sixing earmark reform.

Remember when everyone was so impressed that Nancy Pelosi was working with Sen. DeMint on this issue? Well, this report tells the rest of the story, of how the promise was undone.

An excerpt from the transcript:

SYLVIA CHASE: But what Senator Reid wasn't saying was that the reform measure contained a caveat. Senators wouldn't have to disclose any earmarks that went to federal entities.
But in the Defense Bill, almost all the earmarks first go to federal entities before being passed along to private contractors. In effect, senators would be able to hide almost every earmark. And that prompted a challenge from Senator Jim DeMint — a champion of earmark transparency. The South Carolina Republican made a startling admission.
JIM DEMINT: Many in this Chamber know I don't often agree with Speaker Pelosi, but Speaker Pelosi has the right idea.
SYLVIA CHASE: And a stunning proposal.As an amendment to the Ethics Bill, the staunchly conservative Republican DeMint proposed that the Senate adopt word-for-word the House version of earmark reform marshaled through by the liberal Democrat Nancy Pelosi
JIM DEMINT: We proposed the DeMint-Pelosi Amendment. And I presented it on the floor. And the place was quiet.
JIM DEMINT: This is the language which the new Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has put in this lobbying reform bill in order to make it more honest and transparent.
SYLVIA CHASE: It was a brilliant tactical move. If the Democratic majority was to reject DeMint's amendment it would mean rejecting the much stronger earmark disclosure rules crafted under their own party's high profile Speaker of the House.
JIM DEMINT: Harry Reid did not want this to come for a vote. He made a motion to table it, which gives the members some cover because you're not really voting against the amendment. You're just voting to table it.
SYLVIA CHASE: "Tabling" the so-called DeMint-Pelosi Amendment would mean removing it from consideration — effectively, killing it.
HARRY REID: I would appeal to my friend from South Carolina. I repeat: I know you are doing this because you think it is the right thing to do. But take the opportunity to look at what is here. It is better than the House version – so much better.
JIM DEMINT: And Senator Reid assumed as most people did including me that he would get fifty-one votes to table it. And we had a few heroes on the Democrat side that joined us, Barack Obama, relatively new senator, bucked his party and voted with us.
SENATE PRESIDING OFFICER: On this vote the ayes are 46, the nays are 51. The motion to table is not agreed to.
JIM DEMINT: And we defeated the tabling motion. Well once the tabling motion failed by a vote or two, everyone knew they were going to have to vote on the real thing and it was like 98 to nothing. I mean this is the kind of thing that if, if senators know America can see what they're voting on, they were afraid not to vote for it.
SYLVIA CHASE: Indeed, with all eyes watching — 98 senators voted in favor of the artfully crafted DeMint-Pelosi Amendment; not one opposed it.
The junior senator from South Carolina had taken on the powerful Senate Majority Leader and won. Or so it appeared. Remember: this was an amendment to a wide-ranging ethics bill. And before a bill becomes a law, its final language must be worked out between both houses of Congress. Steve Ellis, a leading earmark reform advocate in Washington, explains how the game works.
STEVE ELLIS: So rather than doing what the House did which was simply change their rules. You're done the next day. Everything is changed and you have to abide by earmark reform, people could still modify it before it actually ended up becoming the rules of the Senate.
SYLVIA CHASE: Which is precisely what happened.

You can watch the video here (sorry, I couldn't find imbed code).

By the way, Barack Obama — whom DeMint had occasion to praise back at the start of this tale ("And we had a few heroes on the Democrat side that joined us, Barack Obama, relatively new senator, bucked his party and voted with us.") — does not escape Moyers' skepticism. Near the top, he notes:

BILL MOYERS: No earmarks will be allowed and if you thought you hadn't heard him correctly, he repeated it in his big speech on Thursday. None of those hidden pet projects with multi-million dollar price tags that individual members of Congress sneak into bills for special interests or campaign contributors. Can it be true? Have we really crossed the bridge to nowhere for the last time?
Don't hold your breath. As a senator, Barack Obama himself was no slouch when it came to passing out earmarks. And many of the people in his incoming administration are accomplished practitioners…

9 thoughts on “DeMint stars in Moyers report on how Dems killed earmark reform

  1. Doug Ross

    It’s good to see we have one Senator in South Carolina who understands his responsibility to the American public.

  2. Doug Ross

    I think Senator DeMint doesn’t represent the illegal immigrant constituency. He believes in the rule of law.

  3. Lee Muller

    This old news is just fine, but don’t take your eye off the rush by Obama and the Democrats to grab that $350 BILLION in unspent TARP bailout money, so they can pass a spending bill with no line items, just blank checks for pork.

  4. Lee Muller

    This old news is just fine, but don’t take your eye off the rush by Obama and the Democrats to grab that $350 BILLION in unspent TARP bailout money, so they can pass a spending bill with no line items, just blank checks for pork.

  5. Phillip

    The saying “a stopped clock is right twice a day” comes to mind with DeMint. His championing of the earmark issue is to be applauded, but a closer look at his voting record shows that it is so dominated by “no” votes on funding issues that he in essence is the Mark Sanford of the Senate…he’s basically against the federal government spending a dime on anything, so occasionally he’s bound to be right. Oh, except regarding federal spending he’s got no problem with anything that involves the defense budget. And the waste he endorses on that front…including the Iraq folly (whose inclusion in regular budgetary accounting he opposed by the way)…absolutely dwarfs by a gigantic magnitude the totality of waste via earmarks.
    Moreover, DeMint’s own personal prejudices (and misguided belief that America’s strength in the world can only be established at the point of a gun) have affected his positions on items like AIDS funding in Africa, one of George W. Bush’s few positive legacies.

  6. Lee Muller

    85% of federal spending is on projects which are not enumerated in the US Consitution, so Rep. DeMint is still voting for too much spending.
    I hope Congress stops the illegal diversion of TARP funds into the Obama Slush Fund.
    Also, his phony “stimulus package” is just a ruse to get a blank check for $750 BILLION of deficit spending for pork, bypassing the appropriations process. There will be no line items, just a pile of cash for politicians and IOUs for taxpayers.

Comments are closed.