"We know that appropriators will fight these cutbacks. But by eliminating earmarks, we can stop the horse trading that grows agency budgets"
About this Quote
Cantor is selling austerity as moral hygiene, and he does it with the language of backroom sin. “Appropriators” isn’t just a neutral job title here; it’s a cast of villains with institutional muscle, people who will “fight” because their power depends on spending. The line sets up a familiar Washington morality play: principled reformers versus the shadowy committee class.
The real work happens in two phrases: “eliminating earmarks” and “horse trading.” Earmarks, in practice, are often parochial and sometimes corrupt, but they’re also one of the few overt ways legislators steer money to specific projects. Cantor’s move is to collapse the messy range of earmarks into a single symbol of corruption. “Horse trading” adds a faintly dirty, old-timey smell - politics as a barn, not a deliberative body - implying that any deal-making around budgets is inherently illegitimate. That frames compromise itself as the problem, not just waste.
The subtext is strategic: shifting budget power away from lawmakers who negotiate tangible benefits and toward leadership-driven, top-line cuts that can be branded as discipline. The argument also flatters voters’ suspicion of Washington process while preserving the speaker’s innocence: the cuts aren’t ideological; they’re just what happens when you stop the “trading.”
Context matters: this is the post-2008, Tea Party-inflected era when “earmarks” became an all-purpose scapegoat for deficits, even though earmarks were a small slice of spending. Cantor isn’t just proposing a rule change; he’s laundering a broader anti-government agenda through the language of reform.
The real work happens in two phrases: “eliminating earmarks” and “horse trading.” Earmarks, in practice, are often parochial and sometimes corrupt, but they’re also one of the few overt ways legislators steer money to specific projects. Cantor’s move is to collapse the messy range of earmarks into a single symbol of corruption. “Horse trading” adds a faintly dirty, old-timey smell - politics as a barn, not a deliberative body - implying that any deal-making around budgets is inherently illegitimate. That frames compromise itself as the problem, not just waste.
The subtext is strategic: shifting budget power away from lawmakers who negotiate tangible benefits and toward leadership-driven, top-line cuts that can be branded as discipline. The argument also flatters voters’ suspicion of Washington process while preserving the speaker’s innocence: the cuts aren’t ideological; they’re just what happens when you stop the “trading.”
Context matters: this is the post-2008, Tea Party-inflected era when “earmarks” became an all-purpose scapegoat for deficits, even though earmarks were a small slice of spending. Cantor isn’t just proposing a rule change; he’s laundering a broader anti-government agenda through the language of reform.
Quote Details
| Topic | Decision-Making |
|---|
More Quotes by Eric
Add to List
