November 30th, 2010
10:32 AM ET
3 years ago

Senate votes down earmark ban

(CNN) - The Senate voted Tuesday against taking up a measure that would have imposed a two-year ban on legislative earmarks, a practice that critics have called an example of wasteful spending.

Legislators voted 56 to 39 in favor of considering a ban, but the measure needed 67 votes to pass. The senators were actually voting on whether to end debate on another matter to consider the earmark ban, but its defeat signals that senators are apprehensive about approving a ban - at least for now.
FULL STORY


Filed under: earmarks • Senate
soundoff (28 Responses)
  1. david

    why has CNN not posted the vote, how many democrats and republicans voted and how did they vote?

    November 30, 2010 10:50 am at 10:50 am |
  2. TJC

    Wonderful system. Send earmarks to favored constituencies and then turn around and get the same $$$ back in campaign contributions.
    Ethically challenged to say the least. Hopefully the Republican's will do better starting in January.

    November 30, 2010 10:51 am at 10:51 am |
  3. Clark Wilhelm Griswald

    Now vote yourself a pay raise, ya schmucks! Both sides guilty of the irresponsible spending, and the Tea Freaks won't help. When it comes to finances, all politicians suck.

    November 30, 2010 10:52 am at 10:52 am |
  4. A True Centrist

    Stunning...the Dems did not vote for a ban on earmarks and pork. I'm telling you Dems, you are losing us independents that turned your way just a few years back!

    November 30, 2010 10:53 am at 10:53 am |
  5. ThinkAgain

    Bringing money home to your constituents is what Representatives and Senators are supposed to do (just read the Constitution, which gives the "power of the purse" to Congress and the Senate).

    The problem isn't earmarks; the problem is the lack of transparency and the way elections work so that corporations and special interests have too much say.

    Pass meaningful campaign finance reform to take the big money out of the equation, and maybe then our representatives in Washington will do a better job!

    November 30, 2010 10:53 am at 10:53 am |
  6. Jack

    Of course. My pet project is your earmark. None of these guys wants to do away with bringing money for projects to their state. You vote for my bridge and i'll vote for your health clinic.

    November 30, 2010 10:55 am at 10:55 am |
  7. Four and The Door

    No surprise here. This is one of Harry Reid's favorite tools for passing legislation that won't pass on it's own merits.

    November 30, 2010 10:58 am at 10:58 am |
  8. Ben in Texas

    Right wingers will scream about this, even though earmarks amount to almost nothing in the grand scheme of government spending. However, the same guys will scream even louder if the Congress doesn't spend hundreds of billions of real money on welfare for the rich, in the form of mini-Bush tax breaks for rich people. Why do Repugs continue to support this lavish, wasteful borrowing and spending, when we know that it produces no new jobs.

    On the other hand, the TARP bailout that Repugs love to hate, yelling that it is $750B in wasteful spending, is actually only costing $25B, according to new figures out today. For that, we got something very useful: avoidance of a 1930s style depression. That's a much better deal than the freebie for the rich that the Repugs are demanding.

    November 30, 2010 11:03 am at 11:03 am |
  9. Terry Harris

    All the talk during the elction season about cutting or eliminating earmarks was just that. If I heard it once I heard a million times that they were going to stop this practice of going thru the backdoor to get pet projects to their states. But what it all comes down to do these people have a backbones at all. well we have our answer, NO. It is bussiness as usual in Washington. If they ever did what the say before being elected this country we would be in a much better state.

    November 30, 2010 11:04 am at 11:04 am |
  10. Thomas

    Folks, soft earmarks do not increase spending one dime. They only allocate that which has already been approved.

    Do you know what would happen if soft ear marks were to be banned? The executive branch would be in charge of allocating the money already approved. Do we really want that much authority to be given to the executive branch?

    November 30, 2010 11:08 am at 11:08 am |
  11. Jim from Va

    Remember this vote to keep earmarks when the election comes in 2012.Vote against all Senators that wanted earmarks to remain be they Republican or Democrats.

    November 30, 2010 11:10 am at 11:10 am |
  12. greg in jax

    please give us the specifics asap.

    November 30, 2010 11:11 am at 11:11 am |
  13. Mike_in_Detroit

    Just make sure all you readers take notes here. These are the guys who begged, borrowed and stole as many votes as possible so they woyld not lose their jobs as big spenders. One of the key issues in the Mid Terms was budgets. These guys stated they would get those Earmark dollars back to the taxpayers, and in less than a month have renegged on their campaign promises.

    November 30, 2010 11:11 am at 11:11 am |
  14. carrotroot

    Wow EIGHT Republicans voted against the earmark ban! So much for taking our country back and the rest of the fiscal responsibility BS.

    November 30, 2010 11:14 am at 11:14 am |
  15. AC

    Ha ha ha ha what was the vote tally? Where was the reps on their pet projects? Now is CNN going to go after those the voted down the earmark ban?

    November 30, 2010 11:17 am at 11:17 am |
  16. Dutch/Bad Newz, VA

    How do you like that Sen. Demint? Sounds like you and your fascists scumbag colleagues are getting a taste of your own medicine.

    November 30, 2010 11:18 am at 11:18 am |
  17. jerry

    People need to remember each one that voted for the earmarks and make sure they are voted out in the next Senatorial election. These people have no concern about getting the country's spending under control only getting reelected.

    November 30, 2010 11:23 am at 11:23 am |
  18. Willy Brown

    Nice, makes is eaiser to vote you clowns out in 2012.

    November 30, 2010 11:24 am at 11:24 am |
  19. JB

    Just "another" example of how our Congressman and Senators could care less what American's want or how they think!! This is exactly how revolutions start and If those fools in Washington think it can't happen in America, they're sadly mistaken! Sure glad I've got 63 years behind me, because I can't even imagine what lays ahead for the "once" strong and "great" America.

    November 30, 2010 11:32 am at 11:32 am |
  20. Take America Back from the Libs

    So, Lliberal Dems, along w/the WH and Liberal Rhino Reublicans do not want to ban earmarks.....and MSNBC doesn't want Sarah Palin to run in 2012...uuuummmmm is there a pattern here???
    Sarah Palin is the only one in the field who has the ______ to put a stop to all this insanity in Washington!

    November 30, 2010 11:34 am at 11:34 am |
  21. Ronald Morris

    Nothing like going on record as being in favor of waste, fraud, abuse and corruption in office. Wonder what size bribes, errr earmarks, they will give themselves for this vote.

    November 30, 2010 11:35 am at 11:35 am |
  22. Reg

    In the conservative states where there are going to be 23 democratic Senators are up for re-election in 2012 it is going to be interesting how they vote the next two years. Small stuff like earmarks are going to be important.

    November 30, 2010 11:36 am at 11:36 am |
  23. Tammy

    Good, it was a useless piece of legislation anyway. The earmark spending represents less than one half of one percent. It was nothing but a token gesture by the republicans to satify their witless rubes.

    November 30, 2010 11:41 am at 11:41 am |
  24. awaitingmoderationby CNN

    We need the names of the 8 Republicans who voted against it. The Democrat liberals are dead meat in the next election anyway.

    November 30, 2010 11:50 am at 11:50 am |
  25. Paul from Phoenix

    Apparently the Senate missed the message sent in early November.

    November 30, 2010 11:51 am at 11:51 am |
1 2