In their final debate on Thursday night, Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) and his challenger Rep. Charlie Melancon (D-LA) grappled with global warming, which threatens Louisiana with destruction through sea level rise, strengthened storms, heat waves, and drought. “It is not a healthy world,” Melancon said, “and we need to look towards trying to fix this problem.” He concluded, “[a]t the rate we’re going and what we’re doing to it, I am fearful that we won’t leave much of a legacy for our children and grandchildren.” Vitter, by contrast, has long questioned the science in his fealty to Louisiana’s oil industry. “I do not think the science clearly supports global warming theory,” he said:

MELANCON: I believe that after going to Antarctica and seeing the science that is being conducted, and not totally understanding all of it because it’s quite complex, but we have a problem with this world that we live in. It is not a healthy world, and we need to look towards trying to fix this problem. I’m not a doomsday person, but there is a place for us to get green, not tomorrow, over time. But we need to bring a combination of fossil fuels and green to bear so this world we leave will be healthy for all the generations to come. At the rate we’re going and what we’re doing to it, I am fearful that we won’t leave much of a legacy for our children and grandchildren.

Q: Mr. Vitter?

VITTER: This is another honest disagreement between us. I do not think the science clearly supports global warming theory. So I would not support any of that sort of cap and tax legislation.

Watch it:

Like many other Republican science deniers, Vitter is a signatory of the Americans for Prosperity “No Climate Tax” pledge. He has received $527,984 from the oil & gas industry this cycle, including $41,750 from Koch Industries, AFP’s backers.

This month, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) penned a Politico op-ed calling for a ban on earmarks, saying they are the “poster child for Washington’s wasteful spending binges. They have been linked to corruption and scandal, and serve as a fuel line for the culture of spending that has dominated Washington far too long.” Many other House Republican leaders have also called for an end to earmarks: Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) has said he aims to “end earmarks as we know them.” A ban on earmarks is a controversial issue among House Republicans — it was conspicuously left out of the GOP’s “Pledge to America,” to the chagrin of conservative commentators.

There are also members of the caucus that oppose such a ban, like Rep. Hal Rogers of Kentucky. He defended earmarks in September, telling Politico that “there is obviously a need for a member to be able to come on out to the Congress for a particular need in his or her district that the regular order is not solving.” Rogers is no backbencher, however — he has long been discussed as being “in line” to take over the House Appropriations Committee, the place where earmarks originate. Now, he tells the Rural Blog that he has secured the votes necessary to assume the committee chairmanship.

Rogers defends earmarks because he’s very good at getting them. Rogers received over $431 million in earmarks just in fiscal years 2008-10, and has steered billions of dollars to his rural Kentucky district over the course of his career, making him one of the most prolific earmarkers in Congress. Many times, Rogers will create a non-profit in his district and then steer money to it, something that troubles government watchdogs:

“When we see a member of Congress using tax dollars to create such non-profit entities, we call it phony philanthropy,” said David Williams, vice president of policy for Citizens Against Government Waste, a Washington-based group that tracks federal pork. “It’s easy to spend someone else’s money; it’s much harder to spend your own. If you set up a non-profit advocacy and they’re advocating a point of view, then every citizen is advocating that view whether they agree with it or not.”

One example among Rogers’ earmarks is Operation UNITE. Critics say that while the program, which was created by Rogers and is poised to receive roughly $13 million in earmarks to ramp up anti-drug initiatives, has been effective, UNITE focuses too heavily on law enforcement and arrests and doesn’t channel enough money into treatment and rehabilitation.

While Republican leaders and candidates on the campaign trail say they want to end earmark abuse — and even earmarks entirely — the task will be very difficult when a powerful Republican pork king assumes control of the committee that hands out earmarks.

(HT: Barefoot and Progressive)

During a debate on Thursday, Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) was asked what he would cut from the budget in order to offset the expense of extending the Bush tax cuts. Remember, a full extension would cost more than $4 trillion over ten years, while extending the cuts for just the richest two percent of Americans costs $830 billion. Rather than lay out where he would make cuts, Vitter rejected the premise of the question, scoffing at the very notion that tax cuts should be paid for:

VITTER: Well, first of all, I disagree with the premise that in order to keep tax rates where they are and not increase taxes, somehow we need to pay for that. I think that’s Washington-speak, not Louisiana-speak. [...]

Q: It’s a misnomer to say this continuing, for the top rates, wouldn’t have to be paid for. You would have to pay that $750 billion because it was supposed to sunset. It’s not an increase, it’s a sunset.

VITTER: Just to be clear, the premise that I disagree with is that to avoid a tax increase, we somehow have to pay for it. It’s not the government’s money, it’s our money. That’s the point.

Watch it:

Vitter did eventually endorse some spending cuts — including rescinding unspent stimulus money, which would have the practical effect of raising taxes on the middle class — but they wouldn’t come close to covering the cost of just extending the tax cuts for the richest two percent. And it’s his complete dismissal of the very notion that tax cuts should be paid for that merits attention.

As The Wonk Room explained, under current law, which stipulates that the Bush tax cuts expire, the government will collect 21 percent of GDP in revenue in 2020. Extending the cuts means less revenue for the government and bigger deficits. But Vitter is hardly alone in failing to grasp this concept.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said in August, “you’re talking about current tax policy. Why did it all of a sudden become something that we, quote, pay for?” “Listen, what you’re trying to do is get into this Washington game and their funny accounting over there,” said House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH), when asked if Republicans planned to pay for extending tax cuts for the rich. “It’s not a cost. That’s where we are today. That’s the baseline. It doesn’t score anything to continue them,” insisted Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK).