Across the board, and no exceptions.

House Republicans approved a conference-wide moratorium on earmarks on Thursday, one day after a House committee enacted a ban on for-profit earmarks.

The Republicans’ moratorium is more extensive than the House Appropriations Committee’s ban in that it applies to all earmarks for all members of the caucus.

(Via Instapundit) Rep. Pence calls it a ‘clean break,’ which it is: I forget who out there has noted that this has been at least partially brought about by it being an election year. Which is fine by me; fear of the consequences of ticking off the voters is a perfectly good motivational tool for keeping legislators in line, as the upcoming Congressional elections are going to demonstrate. There’s going to be a goodly number of Democratic object lessons Congressmen who are going to wish that they had trusted their instincts in that regard, in fact.

Moe Lane

PS: Democratic praise for this is, of course, worth its weight in gold.  Speaker Pelosi’s in particular: she has no intention of giving up earmarks.  After all, her current strategy for passing health care rationing relies on the hope that enough members of her own caucus will be willing to prostitute their votes…

Well, that’s unfair.  To prostitutes.

PPS: Give up the ‘it’s a small portion of the budget!’ wheeze.  The problem with earmarks is that they encourage legislators to treat the Federal Budget as their own personal cornucopia/no-limit, no-consequences credit card.  As everyone who pays even rudimentary attention to this sort of thing knows perfectly well.

Crossposted to Moe Lane.

In the latest Mad-Magazine-like-Spy-vs.-Spy move, the House Dems have hatched a plan which reminds me of their ill-fated plan to delay seating Senator-elect Scott Brown until they had another ObamaCare vote on the Senate floor.

The Dems backed down. Similarly, they will back down from the Slaughter plan.

Former Speaker Gingrich describes the Slaughter plan in a tweet about a Brian Darling blog:

“Incredible. We’ve gone from passing bills without reading them to passing bills without voting on them.”

They haven’t tried it yet, they are thinking about it.

But now that the Senate Parliamentarian has ruled the obvious, that you can not vote on a reconciliation measure if the bill you are attempting to reconcile has not been signed into law — the Slaughter plan looks both desperate and comical.

It is also (obviously) unconstitutional and will, if carried out, create a public outcry that will make burning witches at the stake look rational.

Just like the Black Spy thought the White Spy was caged and an easy target, the trillion dollar President and the Speaker find themselves without the votes and trying again to cheat the U.S. Constitution, public opinion and voters who want Congress to stop the irrational ObamaCare quest and start over. Their persistent problem is they keep causing their colleagues mortal political harm with their increasingly hare-brained-Slaughter schemes.

You know, like lets-use-reconciliation-to-pass-the-hated-Senate-ObamaCare-bill. (It’s no shock that Obama has hit his lowest Gallup poll approval rating ever.)

Ironically, the trillion dollar President has created a bi-partisan health care effort, it’s just that it’s a bi-partisan alliance against his bill. What is causing cognitive dissonance in the White House and among the Democratic Party’s cognoscenti is the simple fact that the only thing bi-partisan about ObamaCare is the opposition to it.

And the Slaughter plan of passing ObamaCare without voting on it, in the face of the Senate Parliamentarian decision, the current political anti-incumbent environment, the views of independent voters and seniors about ObamaCare is as if the Democrats are like the self-immolating monks protesting the Vietnam War.

The Speaker’s problem is that not every Democrat has signed up for the ObamaCare self-immolation school of Pelosi politics.

If the Dems actually try the Slaughter (no pun intended) plan, Americans will burn down the Dems’ house. Really. No kidding.

In the meantime, the House Republicans should petition the Supreme Court to hear their case against the pass the bill without voting on it, should the Dems try it. The Supreme Court would quickly declare it unconstitutional. But just the fact that I am writing this sentence makes me feel like I am writing about a banana republic — you know — where the rules are ignored and a small minority is imposing draconian changes and hated laws on a public straining to also play by the rules.

But in banana republics, where leaders give the Constitution and the public the middle finger, the public eventually gets really very angry, and starts doing more than breaking windows. Something like this could persuade some that it is just not fair if only one side plays by the rules.

Meanwhile, outside of the Slaughter-Pelosi fantasy land, the news keeps getting worse for the Dems. The Hill ran a story today titled: “House Democrats’ ‘no’ votes are piling up as healthcare reform moves forward,” and Talking Points Memo reports another No is still at No.

An undecided who was not even listed on the NRCC whip count (meaning they did not think he would switch from Yes to No) but was listed in The Hill’s whip count as undecided, is sounding very much like a No vote, as Talking Points Memo reports.

And the Hispanic Caucus has seemed to learn their lesson from Rep. Stupak and Senator Lieberman — if you want a change that the House Leadership will not give you — take their bill hostage until they cave.

Of course, the Hispanic Caucus must shoot the hostage if the Leadership says No — and the perceived credibility on the shoot-the-hostage-part is really low for the Hispanic Caucus. Their beef is they want illegals to be included as beneficiaries in ObamaCare.

Regardless of whether or not you think the Hispanic Caucus has the cajones to pull the trigger, the Leadership is now faced with another pool of possible No votes against the Senate bill — just like the pro-lifers, maybe.

What is beginning to happen is pretty clear: since Members believe the leadership does not have the votes and ObamaCare will fail in the House — there is a line forming in front of No, so Members can get on the right side of their voters — the Speakers pleadings for her caucus to self-immolate notwithstanding.

(This post was written in response to those “paging Perrin” and the others who who have been commenting on Darling’s blog, asking for my take on the Slaughter “plan.”)

I’m getting word that Senator Harry Reid’s wife and daughter have been in a very serious car wreck.

It’s one thing to take shots as the man as a politician, but right now we should be praying for him and his family.

Tim Stewart worked for Bob Bennett as a legislative assistant for seven years. In 1999, Stewart left Bennett’s office to work for Fannie Mae in Utah. Bob Bennett’s son joined Stewart working for Fannie Mae.

In 2006, Bennett’s former chief of staff, Chip Yost, left Bennett’s office to become a lobbyist. Guess who his client is? Fannie Mae.

Tim Stewart moved back to DC a few years ago and and continued lobbying for Fannie Mae until the government created the Federal Housing Finance Agency.

According to the Salt Lake Tribune on September 19, 2008:

“Congress is facing heavy criticism for its oversight, which the White House, presidential candidates and financial experts have said was lacking. This is especially true about Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae - they were government-sponsored, private entities under direct government regulations to help keep capital flowing through the financial markets. With their collapse, they are now part of the U.S. government, bringing all of their debt with them. Bennett, who received more campaign contributions from Freddie and Fannie than any other Republican over the last 20 years, said: ‘They obviously got too big and carried too much risk.’�

This is similar to Bennett’s relationship with TARP recipients, which I’ll get into tomorrow.