The proposed earmark moratorium that the Republican Senate caucus will vote on tomorrow has pitted Oklahoma's two conservative senators against one another. "Republicans can send a signal that they get it," earmark opponent Coburn tells THE WEEKLY STANDARD. "Or they can send a signal that they continue to not get it and say they're not going to change. And if they do that, they're going to pay for it at the ballot box."

Should Republicans who oppose it be worried about a primary challenge? "You bet," says Coburn. "They sure should."

"If you can't fix earmarks, you're never going to fix the other problems that are wrong with this country."
But earmark supporter Jim Inhofe says that earmarks have been demagogued--abolishing them, he says, wouldn't save money and would cede Congress's constitutional spending authority to the executive branch. In an interview with THE WEEKLY STANDARD, Inhofe blasted the proposed earmark moratorium as the "Obama-DeMint-McCain" plan and said it doesn't matter if Republicans suffer electoral consequences for continuing to earmark. "If that's the result, it's the result of people saying things that are dishonest, which i can't do," says Inhofe. The alternative to supporting earmarks "would be to join in the untruths," he says, likening criticism of earmarks to criticism of global warming skepticism.

p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 15.0px Arial; color: #4f0f50}

p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 15.0px Arial; color: #4f0f50}

Inhofe explains his support for earmarks with an example. "When the budget came over from the president he had on there a type of launch system that cost $300 million. ... However we have a greater need for 6 additional F-18 fighter jets. And we took the $300 million and scratched off his launch system and put down [the fighter jets]. Technically, under the definitions that the House and the Senate are embracing, we would not be able to do that because these F-18s would be considered to be an earmark."

"This is not a debate about whether members of Congress can control spending--they can if they do oversight.

"fail and refuse to do oversight" for every thousand earmarks they do one oversight hearing."

"Earmarks aren't part of Article 1, Section 8.

"How'd we operate for 200 years in this country without earmarks? Explain that. For the first 200 years did we cede our authority to the executive branch."

Should Republicans who oppose it be worried about a primary challenge?

"You bet. They sure should."

demonstrate to the American people that we heard them. ...... "Earmarks overall are a stupid thing to do even though there are a lot of good ones and a lot of them have helped a lot of people. The whole process turns federal government upside down. It says we're going to send money to Washington so we can send it back home. How about not sending the money here in the first place.

... "It's the politicians addiction to spending and power.

Reagan vetoed size of federal gover

This is not a debate over whether the Senate can control--they can if they do oversight--this is a debat enot between

"Why not devolve it to the states?"

"We'll just keep our taxes and take care of our own roads. Oklahoma's been a donor state since I was a boy. We're building bicycle paths in Minnesota, when we need 90,000 bridges repaired in Oklahoma. I mean, give me a break."

"We've agreed to disagree. I love Jim Inhofe. We just have a different philosophy on this. I think he's a dang good senator."

"I hope they do, but if we don't we'll move on and we'll suffer the consequences of sending a terrible signal to the American people."