it was earmarking. i just saw that the former majority leader of the united states house of representatives was convicted in court in texas and earmarking played a major role, the system of rewards for campaign contributions was an important factor in that conviction. so for many years, i have been coming to this floor to express my frustration with this corrupt practice. it's been a lonely fight and hasn't won me many friends in this body and i understand that, but i'd also like to point out that my criticisms have not been directed just for the other side of of the aisle. earmarking is a bipartisan disease and it requires a bipartisan cure. after so many years in the trenches to eliminate this practice, i am pleased that the american people are demanding that we stop this practice. as my colleagues know, earlier this month, the senate republican caucus unanimously adopted a nonbinding resolution to put in place a two-year earmark moratorium. i applaud my fellow republicans in the senate who join our r

are bad, earmarks are bad, earmarks are bad. we're going to do away with earmarks and let everyone applaud before they realize what it really is. to be able to come down -- i hear the staffers right now telling their members, you know, you have the greatest opportunity, you can vote for this amendment to ban these earmarks and you can make people think you're conservative, number one. number two, you can make president obama happy because he is -- he is publicly supporting this. this is what he wants. because this means, as it's been said by senator lautenberg and by senator harkin and several others, if we don't do it, that goes to the president. i'm going to explain how that works in a minute. we can be politically correct and there will be a lot of them thinking what an opportunity this is. if i vote for this amendment i'm a conservative and obviously i can make our president happy, that will do me no harm and i can be politically correct. well, it's been demagoguing now for so many years. and let me define what the third web

all these people earmark people earmarks, think about this. the next time you have a national disaster, i want to see you -- don't want to see you in line saying where is the government. of those earmarks that your congressman or what ever brings to your state help see out. a lot of people don't realize the help they have been given by earmarks, not to mention the amount of money going towards -- sorry, a little bit nervous. towards research. a lot of medical things coming out in the last 20 or 30 years are because of earmarks. people need to wake up and smell the coffee. those teacup party years saying they want to get back to the constitution, the founding -- founding fathers put that in the constitution. if they don't like that they don't like the constitution. host: what part of the constitution? caller: i am not sure exactly how it is written. but i keepearing these tea partiers -- host: the power of the purse strings? caller: right. host: we will talk about that more later with congressman jeff philippe when he joins us. first, senator j

any earmark request. >> earmarks are the gate way to corruption. >> earmarks are absolutely a problem and we must end earmarks. >> earmarks have become emblematic of everything wrong with spending. >> the next senator from florida will be a yes vote to banning all earmark spending in the united states congress. >> okay. banning earmarks. that sounds perfectly reasonable. the gop gained seats in this month's midterm elections on the promise of fiscal responsibility. so they come out of the gate swinging, promising to ban these earmarks. and it's not just the gop. democrats are in on it too. heck, even the top democrat, president obama himself, is all for it. listen. >> i agree with those republicans and democratic members of congress who have recently said that in these challenging days we can't afford what are called earmarks. >> okay. so the president is behind it and so are several republicans. in fact, today house republicans agreed to continue their ban on earmarks in the upcoming session of congress. and earlier this week, senate republicans did the same thing. so you might be th

earmarks is bogus.ning it, in other words, republicans are resolving not to appropriate or authorize spenneding, which is what the constitution directs members of congress to do. he calls a moratorium on spending and doesn't save money, sends it to the executive branch. in other words, president obama and the administration decide where exactly it will go. what about this issue of earmarks? back with the panel? steve? >> well, i don't agree with him. if you would have told me a week -- >> bret: but the explanation. >> it's a fair explanation. we got into this last night. technically you can say earmarks add earmarks don't add to bottom line of spending. what earmarks do and the reason so many of us find them insidious is they grease the wheel for bad spending. you may have senator "x" who doesn't care whether h.u.d. gets a 20% budget increase in any given year, but he has a project, $37 million. in his district or his state that is going to be the senator "x" center excellence for congressional excellen

that's a $6 million earmark for every earmark that he got, but today, he's against earmarks. >> so, i want to ask you a question. we accept the fact that earmarks are a mine skul portion of the budget in this country. in question, a tiny percentage. you've got deal with medicare, defense. no one wants to deal with it. you've got these new politicians that have come in. they're going to stop government spending. they're sent to do it. they're on the tea party and this is an easier target because it is something that reeks of secrecy and the book room and the cigars. if we look at ourself as people who want this country to be more efficient, more free, more transparent, more competitive, are we just on another boondoggle with earmark debate as we are with so many of these other debates that we're presented with that are largely a distraction. >> if you want to make a real impact, roll back spending to 2008. roll it back to precrisis. freeze discretionary spending. >> which is the size of the pie. >> but the second part to jimmy is and i'm always about cutting the budget and everything e

>> i think the problem with the case for earmarks diana and some of the earmarks that things go to fund are worthwhile. the truth is if we eliminate that process some of that money will still be spent. a lot of that money will be spent on those projects because they're good projects. the argument is pretty strong on the side of it's time to get rid of them for symbolic reasons. let's be clear. they are not going to fix the budget. they are not going to make a real dent in the budget. but they are going to be a first step. it's very important. before we move on to the real issues of dealing with our budget on the spending and entitlement, tax side. it's very hard to say to tax payers or recipients of social security or those in medicare or in defense all the different programs that will be affected you have to make real sacrifices if we still read about bridges to nowhere or rock'n'roll halls of fame museums. these kinds of things if they undermine the sense that the money is being spent well it will be harder to asked for shared sacrifice. i think it's a very important symbolic first st

>>neil: earmarks made me a marked man. to the lawmaker thinking it is a phoney issue so by extension maybe i am phony to raise it. senator senator inhofe of oklahoma is joining me by phone. good to have you. >>guest: nice to be with you. i was with sullivan i guess a couple of days ago. >>neil: okay on fox business. >>guest: sitting for you. >>neil: senator you call this a phony through and your office contacted ours we make a big deal about the earmarks you say we are making a big deal out of nothing. >>guest: i didn't say that, maybe someone said that. it is not "nothing," it is significant because when you try to trash the constitution the way they are trying to do it that is significant. so, i had basically three reasons. here is the thing that surprised a lot of people. i am ranked as the most conservative member of the united states senate by not just the national scrowrnl but others but i see this issue and i think how can conservatives do this when it is really issues, first of all, the constitution am problem, the

jim inhofe from oklahoma who is a very big earmarker, very big proponent of earmarking.already said he won't abide by the voluntary ban. so it's really more sort of like senator mcconnell said on his floor speech a way for the republicans to at least try to show they're being serious about paying attention to what tea partyers and others said in the election. >> sort of a symbolic resolution, but they obviously think the symbolism on this is important. i know the house isn't expected to vote on their version of the earmark ban until january, but didn't -- didn't house republicans already try something like this before? >> they did. this year they actually had a ban on earmarks and they didn't request them. generally speaking. however, this year was a little easy for them to do it because they knew that appropriations bills weren't going to actually be passed. it was an election year. the atmosphere as everyone remembers was very toxic. it was an easy choice for them to make. democrats did a similar thing in the house, weaker than what republicans did. they knew there wer

>> i'm opposed to earmarking and i won't use earmarks as a senator. think that the earmarking process is showing the abuse of washington. people don't like things being stuck on unrelated bills in the dead of night by someone who doesn't have their name attached often. i think the appropriations process should go to committee and i've said that i will advocate for kentucky within the context of the committee process and the context of a balanced budget. two very important provisions. >> because in "the wall street journal" interview that you gave the other day, an article by matthew, he wrote this. in a bigger shift from his campaign pledge to end earmarks, he tells me that they are a bad symbol of easy spending but will fight for earmarks and federal pork as long as it's doled out and not parachute in in the dead of night. so you're not a crazy libertarian? not that crazy. so that has generated a lot of commotion asking if you've sold out on this whole issue of earmarks. >> yeah. it's amazing how one little misquote can make a big difference. we've c

budget is it related to earma earmarks. that is less than 1% of the total budget. in the big scheme of things eliminating earmarks will barely make a dent. and for all the talk about savings, that money doesn't get cut out of the budget if the earmarks go away. getting rid of the earmarks changes how the money gets spent. but without more action from congress, won't change how much gets spent. some members do concede that, but they also note it's a powerful symbol of what some lawmakers call wasteful spending. fair enough, but there's something else. the ban. the ban's a strong word, isn't it? the ban is nonbinding for now. at least until the gop makes it part why do it at all? why? because it looks good. remember, when i mentioned political stunts at the top of the show? this is where the stunt part comes in. you see, by taking a stand against earmarks, you don't actually have to stand against any one type of spending. any one program. any one constituency. like if you say you're for cutting social security, seniors might

if you go and look at the earmarks i've generated, they're good earmarks, but the point i want to makes because we focused so much on these pet projects, we haven't performed the oversight we should have done. in many ways, we're forced into a corner to support funding. we did an earmark for over 200 years and the public survived. the process has gotten out of control. i think it's time to end it. >> to what extent do you feel that your role as a member of the united states senate is diminished if earmarks go away? >> there are plenty of other ways i can support what my state needs. one of the ways in which i can support my state is to get on the front end when the president presents his budget and advocate for all the funding needs in the state. anticipate and redouble the efforts we can make on the part of those who want grants that are generated across the board. and that would include some of the projects senator brown has mentioned that are very worthwhile and need to be supported. >> let me show you a clip of the final debate from hofstra. it's senator obama at the time, senator

earmarks are log rolling. you get a whopper bill that has all kind of stuff in it, that you might be able to rally people against, because it's so excessive. but if individual members have got their little project they promise in the home district or state, in the bill, though it's not adding to the overall amount, they are going to be more inclined to support it. that is a lot about the whole appropriation process, i'll scratch your back, you scratch mine and pretty soon you can pass anything. >> chris: i want to break in because there is a subject i wanted to talk to you, brit, about all week. co-chairman -- you have been talking about the national debt for a long of months now. obviously it's a big concern of yours. we had the co-chairs of the debt commission, the president's debt commission come out with their plan this week. i want to put out a brief outline of what it would do. deep cuts in domestic and defense spending. raise the gas tax by 15 cents a gallon. cut benefits and raise taxes for social secu

some of the earmarks are good.t overall if i had to vote no, i would vote no. >> my point is it's about how you allocate the money. it's not like if he hadn't gotten the earmarks his state wouldn't have gotten money. congress allocates money using formulas. they figure out the cause they want to give money to. ear maces are a more low to the ground process, which have become a lot more transparent over the last few years. tough send in an application. you have to meet with legislative aides to make your case. sure, there is room for corruption, but i think that you can reform the system, rather than scrapping earmarks all together, which looks good. it could be politically popular, but wouldn't actually do that much to accomplish your goal, which is reducing spending. >> chris, you made a lot of good points. not buying it. cut them and let's see how it turns out. thank you for joining us. >> thank you. >>> some illegal immigrants are getting cheaper tuition than u.s. citizens. why is that? we'll explain ahead. and

here was the moment earlier today. >> earmarks passionately to them and you support earmarks.ill you try to convince them or be able to convince them? >> nothing, right? no answer from mitch mcconnell. you just saw his hand sort of wave. but he came out just a short time ago. so he's now very much so in favor of this moratorium on congressional earmarks. this republican civil war was brewing over earmarks. is it perhaps over now? >> reporter: no, i wouldn't say it's over. this was a first test. so what the activists have been telling me is we'll pressure the members to vote on this. first of all, this is a voluntary ban by republicans on earmarks. it does not mean it becomes an actual ban. in the senate the democrats are still in control and so far there's no indication that the democrats will follow suit. second of all, it was a first test. so there will be other hurdles on taxes, on spending. i mean, it was the republican party that backed the prescription drug benefit, which is a huge piece of the budget as well now. will they back down on something like that? who knows whe

when it comes to earmarks, i won't be guilty of the same thing. banning earmarks is another small but important somebolic step to show that we are serious, serious on sustained cuts in spending and debt. >> senate minority leader mitch mcconnell says he is listening to the american people, reversing public opposition to earmarks. supporting now a proposed two-year moratorium on the pet projects that have been the focus of a lot of talk on capitol hill as the new congress gets ready in january to come in. white house putting out a statem for president obama, welcome senator mcconnell's decision to join me and member of both parties who support cracking down on wasteful spending which we can't afford in the tough economic times in the days and weeks to come. i look forward to working with democrats and republicans to end earmark spending and find other ways to bring down the deficits for our children. what about all of this? bring in the panel. bill kristol, "weekly standard." juan muslim, -- juan williams, fox news cine -- contributor. >> mcconnell

but that's not earmarking.arking. >> as for senator demint, he's getting criticized by what's left of the gop's moderate wing. this is it. senator collins debating, blaming demint and sarah palin for their role in supporting losing tea party candidates in nevada and delaware. quoting her, "they cost us two seats we could have won." collins adding, if senator lisa murkowski prevails in alaska, palin's power will be weakened. no matter, plenty of palin-approved lawmakers will be heading to washington, including congressman-elect alan west of florida. mr. west hiring right-wing radio host joyce coffman, on whose show he appeared many times, to be his chief of staff. she protested that jewish people who voted for president obama did so because they don't embrace being jews anymore and she said illegal immigrant shoubs hanged. she will continue to hold a position at her radio station, but not host anymore, just correspondent. even so, the council at the house committee on conduct tells thinkprogress.com that the wes

that he will veto any spending bills that include earmarks. is the president willing to take that pledge? >> first of all, as you know, chris, the president spoke on this yesterday and we are pleased with the movement toward doing away with the earmarks and the president has been about earmark reform since he got to the u.s. senate when the republicans were last in charge, earmarks exploded to 16,000, in one year alone. democrats have cut that in half, but we should go the final step here, because they have become a symbol of -- >> the final, the final step -- >> so that -- so the president supports that, obviously, there is some discussion within the republican ranks, senator mcconnell, last week, rejected this, so you can talk about that, with senator diment and see where they are. in terms of, we'll see what comes to us, chris, obviously, this is very late in the game in terms of budgeting and keeping the functions of government operating, so, you know, one of the problems is that these things come imbedded in bills that have to be signed.

item, earmarks banned. both the senate and the house republicans voted to ban earmarks this week.rks has become a technical term for provisions allocated for special interests or pet projects. collectively, earmarks are sometimes referred to as pork. as in pork barrel politics. the kind that barack obama knows well from chicago politics. >> in the rush to get things done, had to sign a bunch of bills that had earmarks in them. which was contrary to what i talked about. >> why did the house and senate republicans move so quickly on banning earmarks? eleanor? >> well, i think the republican leader, mr. mcconnell, said it exactly right. that they have been abused and they have become a symbol of wasteful government spending, even though they amount to a fraction of a fraction of the overspending the government is guilty of. they have become this potent symbol, ultimately the bridge to nowhere, ted stevens, what everybody thinks of. you have the tea party caucus that corralled the votes, went around the republican leadership, and forced mitch mcconnell to do a total about- face on the

as a senator i helped eliminate earmarks and as a president i've called for new limitations on earmarksnd set new higher standards and transparency and accountability as we can't stop with earmarks that represent only part of the problem. i look forward to working with democrats and republicans to bring down our deficits for children as the president points out, earmarks a symbolic, a tiny sliver of our financial economic problems. senate republicans are planning to vote today and with mcconnell's backing it is expected to pass. >>> latest tally shows write-in candidate lisa murkowski is holding on to a narrow lead in the undecided alaska senate race. the incumbent senator ahead of joe miller by 1700 votes right now. murkowski is lobbying criticism at former governor sarah palin who endorsed miller this year in the republican primary. in an interview last night with cbs news, murkowski said she could not support palin for president, should she run in 2012, citing palin's lack of, quote, intellectual curiosity. >> what's up with your relationship with sarah palin? can you explain it? >>

was the golden gate bridge an earmark? national airport an earmark?rk is using federal funds for local projects. >> all of us have been thrown under the congressional pork wagon too long. these pork projects act like gateway drugs to more government spending and bigger governing. they need to congress micromanaging the economy. and they've got to stop, because it is tearing up the social fabric the idea being what is in it for me? it should be about the greater good of the nation. >> david: when some republicans were wavering like mitch mcconnell, ran paul wavering on the issue, they were pulled back by political reality will the same happen to lisa murkowski? >> i hope it does. i realize 15 billion dollars in earmarks pales compared to a trillion dollar budget deficit. let's not forget, a lot of senators use earmarks to fund projects out of their state, not for local constituents only. this isn't just something where congressmen are bringing home the bacon. they are doing it to give money back to people that funded their campaigns. often that benefit

this earmark ban sends a good message. are earmarks, the vast majority of federal spending?o but it is showing it is time to clamp down and make tough choices. now we have to make a real change. >>neil: how do you get along this orientation week? i am told you are like bulls in a china shop, and a lot of the establishment guys say you are unruly, and what is it? >>guest: it is going very well. it has been amazing the class has gelled very well, and we understand, we all share why we are here in washington, dc. we are sent with a mandate. and the class is coming without legislative experience but with real world experience. so it is a vast group, and it has been good getting to know each other and we understand that we have to come to washington, dc and well not change things on january 6th, but we are sworn in on the 5th but we have to take our time and be vigilant and make sure that we are getting this in gear because that is what the membership want and they do not have patience to come here. we need to make changes and i am on the transition team. and trance particpiants

in 2010, 95 earmarks totaling about 257 earmarks. do you want to continue with the earmarks?he way that senator jim inhoff has been presenting this argument in saying, look, if you're really serious about reducing spending if you're really serious about making sure that there is openness and transparency in the process, then eliminating earmarks is not going to be the end-all and be all of the spending issues. >> so the tea party's wrong? >> what inhoff's -- well, the tea party needs to and it's not just the tea party, there needs to be a clear understanding of what an earmark really is. i don't think that's the direction we should go, and i think most people, particularly the tea party people who say states rights, we'll make sure that the states have a say in it. we'll make sure that your state's representatives have a say in it. don't shift it over to the agencies for that decision making to be done there. >> earmarks are just a tiny percentage of the spending in washington. based on this president's commission of deficit and debt reduction in the long-term, people on the

is that an earmark under their definition? and the one if the senate, it is an earmark. so we will send that money back to obama and that is why president obama is all for john mccain and demint's ban on earmarks. >> well, neil cavuto spoke with rand paul and senator demint. >> we will not cut spending if we think it is the job of congress men and senators to maybe local pack lots. >> we have had politicians that pander and say we will continue to bring you home the bacon, bring everything home to you, there are no problems. >> it should stay in effect until we get the process reformed so we do not have the trade making. so, you see the point, members of your own party, senator, automatically assume an earmark is some sort of worthless pork spending. >>guest: this is the problem we have. i talked to frank luntz, and he said you are right but the public is brain washed thinking a lot of these are the very liberal members of congress, into thinking that earmarks are all bad. if you quit saying earmark and say appropriations i will buy it, do you remember when hannity came

house republicans want to ban earmarks. this morning on television, on nbc, i think it was, your senate colleague jim demint, who is the champion of the tea party said he wants to ban on earmarks. the house republicans want to do that. you said in the past you don't think that's a good idea. >> well, here's the problem. the president of course endorsed the demint proposal in his press conference the other day, as well, which is not surprising because every president would like for us to appropriate all the money and send it to them and let them spend it in any way they want to. the earmark issue is about an argument between the executive branch and the legislative branch over how funds should be spent. so it has generated some level of controversy within our conference. there are many members of my conference who said i don't want the president to make all the decisions about how the funds are spent that might be allocated to my state. other members have said i think we need to get rid of earmarks. we ought to deal the exec

a ban on earmarks asç opposed transparency in earmarks is just a huge power giveaway to the presidenta trampling of the constitution. this is a distraction from where the real problem is in our budget, the defense budget, tax breaks for the rich, as bill said, and corporate subsidies and the like. >> david, you are absolutely right. i just made that point to robert gibbs at a briefing inside. >> david sirota and bill press. no question about where you stand. thank you for joining us. up next, a rebel yell by a tea party politician works. why jim demint may be the real leader of the republican party. >>> plus -- >> if you ran for president, could you beat barack obama? >> i believe so. >> it's her strongest words yet about a potential presidential run. how does sarah palin get where she is? and is she for real? [ male announcer ] don't let aches and pains in the morning slow you down. introducing bayer am. its dual-action formula delivers extra strength pain relief, plus it fights fatigue. so get up and get going with new bayer am, the morning pain reliever. >>> republican senator jim

earmarks make up less than 1% of federal spending., we are talking about stuff around the margins. there's a lot of folks who campaigned saying if you got rid of earmarks, you will get rid of the deficit. at the end of the day if we got to get rid of the earmarks so to be if that takes that issue off the table. that isn't our focus that should be job creation, the private sector regenerating jobs and ought to be first, second and third. >> senator, good to have you with us tonight. off plan. i give you credit. >> i have an alternative that maybe gets both sides out of their corners and willing to start talking. >> senator mark warner of virginia, good to have you with us. >> thanks, ed. >> turning to a former republican congressman, now a fellow at the heritage foundation. ernie what about earmarks? heard the senators say, it is .3 of 1%. what is the big deal? >> the sweet eners that help spend more money. members of congress say i don't want to vote for a big spending package unless i have got the problem, why mitch mcconnell was rig

we reduced the cost of earmarked by over $3 million. we have increased transparency by putting as much information on earmarkes.gov. we updated it and make it easier to look up earmarks. today, we have a chance to go forward. we have a chance to shine a light on a bad habit that wastes billions of taxpayer dollars. also today -- also to rebuild trust. we can put our country on the past of -- path of fiscal discipline that will lead to a brighter future for all. i hope we can reach across party lines to get it. thank you and have a great weekend. i am a congressman from oregon. americans want the government to be smaller and less intrusive. they want health care reform that protect jobs instead of the government takeover that is costing jobs. it wants congress to respect their will and our our constitution. these priorities are embodied in the pledge to america. if the government agenda puppets on creating jobs and reforming congress -- the people's priorities will be our priority. i ran a small business for more than 20 years. now turn

. >> let's talk about earmarks. everybody's talking about earmarks and the republicans are going to have their vote this afternoon on voluntary decision on earmarks to give up earmarks now that mitch mcconnell has gone along with jim demint and others who have been calling for this decision. what is the real significance here? we're talking about now $15 billion, it used to be $18 billion, out of an enormous budget. it really will not affect the deficit long-term as much is bigger, tougher decisions. >> well, i think some would say it's just a symbolic gesture, but when you look at the size and scope of earmarks from all the different members, me included. i have asked for earmarks in the past, took the voluntary decision not to ask for them last year and will do that again this year. i think it really takes a broad step for us to say no more behind the curtain deal. earmarks are -- of not just the spending issue, but also the cover of darkness over much of our business has been conducted. i think it's significant.