In an era of change, Sen. James Inhofe is unapologetic about standing his ground.

"He's not seen as a rebel around here by any means ... but he's an independent thinker," Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said of the Oklahoma Republican.

Inhofe, 76, is comfortable being a contrarian. In an interview last week, he recalled a time when one of his grandchildren "came up to me and said, ‘Pop-I, Why do you always do things that nobody else does?' ... and I said, ‘because nobody else does.'"

This week U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe reportedly was the only member of the Senate's Republican caucus voting against a moratorium on earmarks - the process by which members of Congress designate federal spending on specific projects in their states and districts. Sen. Lisa Murkowski missed the vote because she's in Alaska awaiting the conclusion of her re-election race but says she would've voted against the ban if she had been around.

As he's explained many times, Inhofe believes the earmark moratorium is a lot of hot air over a relatively small amount of money (2 percent to 3 percent of total federal spending). And besides, he argues, the legislative branch is constitutionally empowered to appropriate funds. So, no, he's not concerned about being a lone wolf on earmarks.

Nor on other stuff, either. He was an early opponent to the Obama administration's cap-and-trade bill and his stalwart crusade against anti-global warming measures has earned plenty of bile from advocates. No matter. One of Inhofe's favorite stories is about how he jetted to last year's big climate change conference in Denmark, basically parachuting into Copenhagen for a couple of hours to be a one-man band in opposition - surrounded by a sea of people who didn't agree with him. You need a tough hide to play the role of a voice crying out in the wilderness. Inhofe's most certainly is

WASHINGTON - U.S. Senate Republicans adopted by voice vote a nonbinding proposal against earmarks Tuesday, but Sen. Jim Inhofe, possibly the lone dissenting vote, expressed relief that others will join him in looking after their states' needs.

"Now they are all wanting exceptions, so let's just wait and see,'' Inhofe said following the vote on the proposal by Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C.

"I am going to go ahead and continue to represent the state.''

Inhofe also said he would vote against a binding proposal against earmarks by his fellow Oklahoma Republican, Sen. Tom Coburn.

In addition to addressing specific needs for Oklahoma, Inhofe also cited a number of national defense items that would not have come about without earmarks.

Those included an unmanned aerial vehicle system, improved armor and a mine resistance system.

Love him or hate him, Oklahomans have to admire U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe's tenacity when it comes to the fraudulent war on earmarks being waged by some of his fellow lawmakers.

The Oklahoma Republican has vowed to vigorously fight a proposed Senate moratorium on earmarks, using as one of his strongest arguments the blatant hypocrisy of the anti-earmark crusade.

Inhofe believes his solid bona fides as a stalwart conservative will lend credence to his battle.

But it will be an uphill battle. "Earmarks" has become a dirty word in the political arena, ranking almost up there with the "T" word and the "L" word. (For the uninitiated, that's taxes and liberals.)

The House already has imposed an earmarks moratorium and now senators realize there is much political hay to be harvested by hopping on that wagon.

Shhhh! There's a secret about earmarks: Eliminating them won't save taxpayers one dime. Instead, the money gets turned back to President Barack Obama so he can direct spending as he sees fit.

In light of this, it is no wonder that Obama is willing to support the ban and join the Republicans senators who for years have demagogued about congressional earmarks. On Election Day the American people sent the message to Washington that it is time to reduce government spending, repeal Obamacare and cut taxes. A moratorium on earmarks would only serve to increase the amount of money Obama has to spend.

This year, the House in its earmark ban, defined "earmarks" as authorizations and appropriations - precisely what Article I Section 9 of the Constitution states Congress is supposed to do.

Americans - especially conservatives - are being taken with a fiscal sleight of hand. Rightly concerned about the future of our country and the out-of-control spending taking place in Washington, these concerned citizens are being duped by the earmark debate. Getting rid of earmarks does not save taxpayers any money, reduces transparency, and gives more power to the Obama administration.

A congressional earmark moratorium won't save a single taxpayer dime. Proponents of the earmark ban like to say that a dollar cut is a dollar saved. Unfortunately, that's just not true. For example, in 2009 the Senate performed the rare action of considering many appropriations bills individually rather than irresponsibly lumping them all into one large bill to consider at the end of the year. The value of considering these bills individually is that it gives senators the opportunity to exercise some oversight of government programs and to monitor how federal departments spend money. Senators could offer amendments to both cut spending and strike particular earmarks if they desired. From July to November that year, there were about 18 votes specifically targeting earmarks. All the amendments failed. But had they succeeded, they would not have reduced the overall amount of money being spent by the federal government. Instead of putting the money back into the pockets of the American people by reducing spending or shrinking the deficit, these efforts to eliminate earmarks would have put more money into the hand of President Obama by allowing his administration to spend the money as he saw fit. At the end of the day, none would have saved money.

WASHINGTON - U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe, stepping up his campaign against a fellow Republican's proposal to place a moratorium on earmarks, said Wednesday his conservative record gives him credentials to take on the battle.

"I am recognized, and people on the talk shows know I am considered the most conservative member of Congress,'' the Oklahoma Republican said.

"If the most conservative member of Congress can't tell the truth, no one else can.''

As part of a campaign that included weeks of planning, Inhofe vowed to point out the hypocrisy of those pushing for the moratorium and to unveil an alternative proposal that will resolve the earmark problem forever.

That will come in a speech Monday on the Senate floor.

In a wide-ranging interview this morning exclusive to Hot Air with one of the leading conservative voices in Congress, Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma explained why he has decided to oppose the earmark moratorium pushed this week by fellow Republicans like Sens. Jim DeMint (SC) and John McCain (AZ). The moratorium not only contradicts the Constitution, Inhofe argues, but it puts the power of the purse mainly into the hands of the President - and Barack Obama has already shown that he can't be trusted with it after his pork-filled stimulus plan from February 2009. Inhofe warns that "Obama wins" if the moratorium passes, which is why the President has publicly backed the effort.

The Senator knows that I have been a critic of earmarking and have supported a moratorium in the past, and we debated the issue during our conversation. He didn't disagree that earmarks have become a cesspool of abuse, but disputed that the moratorium would change anything except authorship. Inhofe plans to introduce a bill on Monday when the Senate reconvenes that will attempt to stop the abuses, and promises to discuss those provisions further once the bill gets onto the floor.

In a New York Times blog post, previewing a Sunday Times interview with President Obama about lessons learned in his first two years in office, an interesting quote stands out: the President now believes, “there’s no such thing as shovel-ready projects.”

How things change. Indeed, how can one forget the mantra of 2009, when President Obama routinely touted “shovel-ready” projects to sell his stimulus bill (check out this this Washington Post article from January 2009).

We look forward to reading the entire Times article on Sunday, but for now, it seems the President can’t quite get a handle on what to do about infrastructure. On Labor Day, the President rolled out a new $50 billion infrastructure policy. But it was an unserious proposal, flawed in many respects, as members of his party clearly understood. Consider the following from National Journal:

Amid much-deserved fanfare and hoopla, Tulsa County and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers officials cemented a cost-sharing agreement Wednesday that will lead to the implementation of the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan.

As County Commission Chairwoman Karen Keith put it, "It's a good day in the neighborhood."

Indeed, it was a good day for the entire region. The master plan, years in the making, will improve and restore the river ecosystem and at the same time guide new development, eventually providing new sources of recreation, entertainment and revenue for communities flanking the river.

Development along the river has occurred slowly and haltingly, when it has occurred at all. The master plan, vetted in numerous public forums in recent years, should help improvements to occur at a more orderly, sure pace.