“GOP Traditionalists to Lead Panels”, WSJ:
House Republican leaders cleared the way for two longtime traditionalist lawmakers to head powerful congressional committees over the objections of some tea-party and conservative activists.
Rep. Hal Rogers (R., Ky.), who has sought earmarks throughout his career, is set to become chairman of the Appropriations Committee, which oversees all federal spending. Rep. Fred Upton (R., Mich.), criticized by some conservatives for votes in support of some Democratic initiatives, was chosen to lead the Energy and Commerce Committee. Mr. Rogers, 72 years old, has served in Congress for 30 years, and Mr. Upton, 57, for 24 years.
Messrs. Rogers and Upton were officially backed Tuesday by the Republican Steering Committee, a 34-member panel that makes committee assignments. The full complement of House Republicans will consider the choices on Wednesday, and approval is likely.
These chairmanship battles were particularly contentious because of the enormous power wielded by the two committees in areas of keen interest to conservatives who energized the Republican surge in the midterm elections—federal spending, health-care policy, environmental regulation and energy policy.
The Appropriations battle was especially close. Both major candidates, Mr. Rogers and Rep. Jerry Lewis (R., Calif.), are among Congress’s longtime pursuers of earmarks, the special items that lawmakers insert into spending bills. Earmarks are a big target of the tea-party activists who helped fuel the GOP takeover.
Critics say the use of earmarks essentially means spending priorities are determined by deal-making, while defenders say the Constitution gives lawmakers the job and duty of making spending decisions this way.
Mr. Rogers over the past three years obtained 135 earmarks worth $246.4 million, according to the Taxpayers for Common Sense, which opposes earmarks and subsidies. Mr. Lewis and a third candidate, Rep. Jack Kingston (R., Ga.), also won millions in earmarks. Yet as they sought the chairmanship, each insisted he was best-positioned to fight earmarks.
Some activists weren’t persuaded. “The whole system has been go-along, get-along as far as spending,” said Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense. “It’s something they all grew up in. They are all recent converts.”
Speaker-designate John Boehner (R., Ohio), in part to ward off such criticism, announced this week he was supporting a seat on the Appropriations panel for Rep. Jeff Flake (R., Ariz.), a longtime earmark opponent.
The fight over the Energy and Commerce Committee chairmanship was similarly bitter. That panel oversees enormous sectors of the economy, including health care and telecommunications.
With Republicans in control, the committee could become a launching pad for efforts to repeal President Barack Obama’s health-care law and for challenges to the administration’s energy policies, including a move by the Environmental Protection Agency to curb greenhouse gases.
Mr. Upton’s candidacy came under siege from conservatives who disagreed with his votes in support of expanding a children’s health program and his backing of energy conservation measures, such as a phase-out of the 100-watt incandescent light bulb. Congressional offices were deluged in recent days with calls from activists opposing his bid.
But in the end, it didn’t matter what the people who brought the GOP back to power wanted.
It never does.
It never will.
Well, except among the fringe extremists. They care. But they’re so, you know, untoward. Lacking in sophistication and nuance. Ideologues.
Very unhelpful, these people.
Unlike the GOP “traditionalists” who are big on earmarks and light bulb bans. For freedom.
Thanks for the votes, TEA Party people. Now run along. We’ll take it from here.
for that matter who wanted Boehnerfag to be speaker again?
Christ on a chrome crutch. What part of “no” don’t these fuckers understand?
It’s almost like they’re daring us to stay home or go third party.
They’ve foresworn earmarks, and I trust Flake to keep Rogers on the straight and narrow.
Now Upton, I have more of a problem with. I can’t understand how he managed to remain the chairman of any committee, especially after the asinine lightbulb ban.
But I’m not seeing these moves as a face slap to the Tea-Partiers. As always, YMMV.
This is a bit disheartening, but not surprising in the least. We’ll be cleaning the Congressional house for a long time (pun not intended, but left in anyway).
That should be, But overall I’m not seeing these…etc.
Better a recent convert than continuing to be a sinner.
I’ll need to find out where Lynn Westmoreland came down on these assignments. I told him “for the love of God, NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!” — but I know how that could be misconstrued.
You mean despite the fact that the Tea Partiers launched a campaign to keep Upton out?
Yeah. My mileage varies.
Mr Flake can’t keep Mr Rogers on the straight and narrow all by his lonesome. Right now would be a good time for the TeaPartiers of the hills and hollows of Eastern Kentucky to begin to mount a serious primary candidacy in opposition to Mr Rogers, declaring outright they’re going to be watching his behavior as Chairman very closely and that he oughtn’t to get to cozy-warm in his new chair.
We need a term limits amendment.
I see this as cronyism more than anything else. It’s their time as it were. To me, it’s past time they were removed from office entirely. We need to be rid of the old guard and the old ways of doing business.
JeffG,
I said I didn’t approve of Upton either. And this is only just out of the steering committee. The entire caucus get’s to vote on these guys.
The phone lines have been melting down, or so it seems. I myself have sent several letters to my own congressman, Peter King, expressiong my personal reservations regarding Upton, and I hope others here have done so as well.
The members elected by the Tea-Party’s efforts, and there are more than a few, will be able to vote on all the committee chairs; and they can remind their colleagues who may no have benefitted as much from Tea-Party support of their reservations. So they’ll get as equal a chance to shape the leadership as anyone else.
I suspect the steering committee is only respecting the seniority, and previously help positions, of these representatives. And the steering committee’s reccommendation doesn’t have to be adopted by the caucus members. Let’s see what the full vote brings.
And in the meantime, any among us who fell strongly and haven’t yet called their reps should consider doing so.
Are they still peeing on the carpet? I guess we’ll have to kick up the training regimen a notch or two. I was hoping a good swat with a rolled-up ballot would do the trick, but perhaps I overestimated their learning potential.
If they keep peeing on the carpet, well, I guess they’ll have to go live outside, and we’ll get some new puppies to live in the house.
Pethokoukis examines DeMint’s opposition to the compromise: applauds.
I think it’s vitally important that we blame every action of the current lame-duck Congress on the Tea Party, blame every maneuver by the Old Guard on the Tea Party, and simply stomp away in a fit when things aren’t transformed overnight by people who aren’t even in office yet.
conservatives and socialists unite
link
pass the popcorn
link
Who is blaming it on the TEA Party?
Not me.
The more I think about this compromise, the less I like it in its totality, for no less than the simple reason that the two sides of our national fiscal problems are spending (first and foremost, overspending in my opinion) and only secondarily (and far behind in rank of importance) revenue. No bargaining between the party of taxation first — the Democrats — and the party of spending restraint — nominally, the Republicans — ought to be conducted without spending cuts, serious spending cuts, out front as a goal. Get cuts in spending, in other words, at every opportunity or suffer blame. So, let this deal suffer blame, since so far as I can see, no spending cuts are included.
Spending is the only problem sdferr, for the simple reason that the taxation party is exclusively interested in social engineering via taxation. Revenue generation is entirely incidental.
To say it is the only problem Ernst, is to say that one would be bargaining with no-one, which is not the way bargaining works, I think.
I guess you have a valid point there, sdferr. But I’m a hostage taker and/or a terrorist (maybe). I don’t bargain. I just have demands that the other side can choose to meet or not meet.
heh
I’m with Ernst. My bargain is that those jackasses spend a lot less than they are now. If they can’t meet that, I will elect someone else who will. If they can meet that, they get to stay in D.C.
I think that’s fair.
And speaking of business as usual, Harry Reid isn’t the only one larding up the tax bill. Chuck Grassy (R -agribusiness) has added on biofuel subsidies (via Daniel Foster at NRO’s Corner).
baracky’s bloated bills™
That was supposed to be Grassley, but Grassy has the ring of truth to it.
#27 – or “Gassy”. I know of cranky-cudgels and Squid brand torches (pitchforks too, right?)…who sells tar around these parts? I am e-mailing my incoming rep (who utterly waxed the “D” who had been in Hastert’s old seat – ha!) and prodding him about this.
SquidCo™ also handles the tar and feathers market, or at least they did the last time I asked.
Gassy looks to be on the fast-track to being unelected. We knew this would happen with some of them. They still don’t get it.
I think we will soon be witnessing the death of the Republican Party – and not a moment too soon. A party whose motto is “Vote for us – we suck marginally less than the Democrats” deserves to be put out of its misery.
Preferably no sooner than the Democrats, though.
[…] all know what’s happening. It’s the system. It’s business as usual. The guys with the seniority get the nice offices and the Committee chairmanships. It’s their […]
Any entries in the Reins, Blinders n’ BuggyWhips market yet?
Keep your new Congresscritter strictly in line and on the right path with Yackums Inc.’s new offerings. Beat them into submission when they stray from the straight and narrow. Take advantage of our Lame Duck Discounts, and before the newbies even touch down in DC, you’ll be ready for them.
Free “Don’t Tread On Me” T-Shirts for the first 50 customers.
Smack ’em with Yackums.
Binoculars and cattle prods also available.
That’s entirely up to the Republicans, isn’t it?
Either I’m bad at math, or both the Republicans and Democrats are lying.
Raising taxes shifts who gets to spend the money – from you to the government. Or lowers the deficit (which takes money out of the economy)
Lowering taxes shifts who gets to spend the money – from the government to you. It increases the defecit.
Cutting government spending shrinks the economy, but increases our ability to borrow, and lowers the risk that we need to print money to fund operations.
Raising government spending expands the economy, but decreases our ability to borrow, and increses the rist that we have to print money to fund operations.
So despite all the talk from parties about taxes, it seems that the real question is – Do we deficit spend to grow the economy, and if so, how much?
Is there something I’m missing?
Bullshit.
You’re not bad at math Alex, but your understanding of basic economics is flawed.
And, y’know, just for good measure:
Bullshit.
sdferr, You don’t think defict spending expands the economy? Tell Reagan.
Seriously – I don’t really get Democrats wanting to raise taxes right now. For what economic benefit? I also don’t get Republicans wanting to slash spending *right now*. Now once the economy has strong self-sustaining growth, absolutely. But it seems that spending cuts – now – would be a drag on economic growth.
You are a moron alex.
More like an economic ignoramous.
Either that or a mendoucheious troll.
And you possess brilliant cognitive capabilities! I marvel at your ability to deftly participate in conversation with the guttural utterances of bullshit, bullshit, moron.
Bravo sir! (golf clap)
I anxiously await your monosyllabic retort.
Well, I may or may not, though it’s likely you’ll never know. However, I do generally use the simplest language I can for an auditor such as yourself, and find that in spite of my efforts to keep things simple, morons like you still manage to make a mess of my attempts to communicate. It’s enough to persuade me you aren’t interested. Which, funny enough, in a kind of feedback mechanism will ordinarily result in less effort on my part, rather than more, this particular response notwithstanding.
And you possess brilliant cognitive capabilities! I marvel at your ability to deftly participate in conversation with the guttural utterances of bullshit, bullshit, moron.
Bravo sir! (golf clap)
I anxiously await your monosyllabic retort.
Your sole function here is sniffing your own farts, so dismissive shorthand is all that you merit. Think of it as the equivalent of patting a particularly dull child on the head.
I thought alex had wandered away long ago. Oh well.