In his eight years on the Senate Banking Committee, there was one issue where Santorum sought to play a leading role. Santorum, despite his reputation as a conservative stalwart, had a keen interest in providing disadvantaged families greater access to affordable housing.
In 2005, when Banking Committee Republicans were trying to tighten the regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Santorum pushed to include language in the legislation that would strengthen their affordable-housing goals. "We're very concerned about making sure that we do things in working with this legislation to improve the access to affordable housing," Santorum said during a July 2005 hearing. He wanted to orient Fannie and Freddie "toward taking a more active role in creating housing opportunities for low and moderate income families."
But 6 years later, GOP presidential candidates say Fannie & Freddie should have been far less oriented toward providing affordable housing--not more so, as Santorum was advocating.
Kevin Wack in "American Banker", "Santorum Runs from Record" - Jan 9, 2012
PAUL: [to Santorum]: I believe Congress should designate how money should be spent. I always voted against spending. You're a big spender; that's all there is to it. You're a big-government conservative. So to say you're a conservative, I think, is a stretch. But you've convinced a lot of people of it, so somebody has to point out your record.
SANTORUM: I've convinced a lot of people of it because my record is actually pretty darn good. I supported and voted for a balanced budget amendment, the line-item veto. In fact, I used to keep track when I was in the Senate of all the amendments that increased spending. I put them on something called a spend-o-meter. If you look at my spending record and you take all the "spending groups," I was rated at the top or near the top every single year, particularly in defense.
WMUR 2012 GOP New Hampshire debate - Jan 7, 2012
I opposed the single biggest government intrusion into the private sector, the Wall Street bailout, the TARP program. I opposed it because it violated the principles of our Constitution, the spirit of our Constitution, because the experience I had, that if you open up the door of government involvement in the private sector, some president will, and in fact did, drive a truck through it and explode the size of the federal government and constrict our freedom.
The four people on this panel that actually supported TARP at the time of its passage are the people who say that they are the anti-Washington candidates, that they are the business candidates, and they're the four on this program that supported the Washington bailout, giving Washington--naively, I would say--tools to constrict our freedom.
The four people were Governor Huntsman, Governor Perry, Herman Cain and Governor Romney all supported TARP.
2011 GOP Debate at Dartmouth College, NH - Oct 11, 2011
Q: [to Bachmann]: You voted against the debt ceiling increase deal. Why?
BACHMANN: Consider what happened by raising the debt ceiling: The Congress gave Barack Obama a blank check for $2.4 trillion. Instead, we should have cut government spending.
SANTORUM: Rep. Paul and Rep. Bachmann had an opportunity to lead. But they couldn't lead the Congress to do something responsible in making sure that we didn't have the fiasco that we have in place now. We should have balanced the budget. The balanced budget amendment should have been the focus from the beginning. To suggest that we never need to raise the debt ceiling, that is showmanship, not leadership. Of course we have to raise the debt ceiling at some point. We're borrowing 42 cents of every dollar. You're going to cut 42 cents of every dollar? Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, defense, and interest on the debt is 60%. That means cut everything else and something of those. That's showmanship, not leadership.
Iowa Straw Poll GOP debate in Ames, Iowa - Aug 11, 2011
Voted YES on Balanced-budget constitutional amendment - Bill S. J. Res 1; vote number 1997-24 - Mar 4, 1997
Voted YES on prioritizing national debt reduction below tax cuts - Bill S. Con Res 101; vote number 2000-55 - Apr 5, 2000
Voted YES on $40B in reduced federal overall spending - Bill S. 1932; vote number 2005-363 - Dec 21, 2005
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally someone caught Santorum in a change from his record. He wanted Fannie and Freddie to play a more active role while he was on the Senate Banking Committee. It's not difficult to see why he changed his mind given what happened, but I'm curious if he can explain it with more than a simple, "I was wrong."
I personally agree that everything should be earmarked, but I think that the term itself needs to be explained.
Every time someone wants to take a political jab at an opponent they try to get them for earmarking, when what they should be doing is hitting opponents for Pork-Barrel Spending. These are two different terms, generally used interchangably and yet having two completely different meanings.
Earmarking is the process of allocating funds already assigned to a specific bill for a project or area for use on items listed as the original intent of the bill. Ie. An earmark giving $600 million to a school district in New York in a bill for Education spending.
Pork-Barrel Spending is the process of allocating funds assigned to a specific bill, or adding additional funds not originally included in the bill, for projects completely unrelated to that bill. Ie. $65 million for internet infrastructure included in a bill for Healthcare spending (read through the entire Affordable Care Act sometime).
Nice with the pointing out the TARP voters and the fact he didn't vote for it.
I'd personally love to see everything in the government cut except for the above listed programs as a start to reduce government spending, so I can't really say I agree with him with that idea being showmanship. It's not immediately feasible (you'd have to do it in chunks to give people and the States time to adjust), but if you have that as your end-goal in mind it's not a bad plan longer term.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment