The headline comes from the Daily Caller: "Rubio, Nelson Already Clash Over Earmarks." But the article simply alludes to statements made on the Hill by the Senator-elect, after a meeting with the senior senator, but Nelson isn't quoted at all. My guess is there is no abnormal tension between these two men. Basic politics will drive them to different public positions on this issue, but neither wants Florida, a state which historically sees far few federal dollars come back compared to the amount which go out, to receive less than its fair share.
It is good politics for Rubio to oppose earmarks. Everyone loves a good government waste story about a $600 toilet seat or a study on the flow of ketchup. That is why Rubio has gone so far as to promise co-sponsorship of a Jim DeMint ban on the practice of barreling pork.
But the truth is, earmarks constitute a tiny part of the federal budget, about one-fifth of one percent according to this ABC report. So it actually will do very little in terms of deficit reduction, or even the feel-good "cut government spending" rhetoric that right-of-center voters eat up like leftover Halloween candy. Plus, the Republicans in the Senate are still in the minority.
Nelson, of course, is not going to pick this cycle of all cycles to abandon Florida earmarks. He is up for re-election in 2012, and may be playing ball in as nasty an environment as he's had to play since 2000. The man wants every project funded, every ribbon cut, every roadway opened to stand as a "Re-Elect Bill Nelson" billboard in the minds of the voters who benefit the most.
The question then is whether Rubio will do anything to undermine Nelson. Of course, there is a old-school rule that incumbents in Florida's Congressional delegation won't campaign on behalf of efforts to unseat other incumbents. Of course, Bill Nelson may be more responsible than anyone for that pact falling apart. Ric Keller in 2002 was expressing irritation the senator was donating money to potential challengers for his seat, and by 2008, Nelson was openly campaigning to unseat GOP House members in Florida.
So maybe Rubio will join efforts to replace Nelson with a Republican, but I doubt standing in the way of transportation projects and performing arts hall grants will be his approach. This little get-together on the Hill is no sign of a deep clash. Rubio has been in legislative bodies before. He is smart enough to know not to pick a fight with a more powerful senator representing his same constituency before even getting sworn in.
I'd be surprised if Florida really does receive less than its fair share of government dollars. With all the retirees, we've got to be getting a bunch of Social Security and Medicare money coming into the state, and they're paying less in taxes. We are in the middle of the pack in terms of active military, and towards the bottom in terms of reserve military, but still - we've got way more than our share of 39% of the federal budget. But maybe you're measuring it differently.
ReplyDeleteBut you're right, of course. Earmarks are nothing but a soundbite. I'm looking forward to seeing what Rubio says about Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. From his campaign website, it sounds like he's in favor of benefit cuts and possibly increasing retirement age, and there are real savings (and hard choices) to be had there. Disappointingly, he wouldn't touch defense.
Actually, we do pay more than we get. Following up on the skepticism, I did some research and found this from the Tax Foundation: http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22685.html
ReplyDeleteThe Foundation only had data until 2005, but it shows that year we got 97 cents for every dollar we paid. Through the 80s and 90s, we got more than we put in, but that changed this decade.
But I will concede that "historically sees far fewer federal dollars come back" proved to be hyperbole on my part.