'earmarks' ? 11,000 of them

[Drakkon]

More than 11,000 of those "earmarks," worth nearly $15 billion in all, were slipped into legislation telling the government where to spend taxpayers' money this year, keeping the issue at the center of Washington's culture of money, influence and politics. Now comes an election-year encore.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25007385/

Its sad that this is still so prevalent and it seems nothing has changed. Its clear the current crop of congressmen don't get why they were elected. Say what you will about McCain and his current staff of lobbyists - but he seems to be one of the few backing up his words on earmarks. AZ has been one of the states to get the lowest share of 'pork' year after year since hes been in the senate. Not sure how good/bad of a thing that is as its kinda led to a lot of screwed up things in AZ but he seems to be a man of his convictions.

 

[tw1164]

Good to see my Rep made the list. If only I found a way to turn my $63k into $3.2M

Rep. Tim Holden, D-Pa.
Holden earmarked $3.2 million to Reading-based Fidelity Technologies for the Call for Fire Trainer, a training simulator to help "forward observers" conduct calls for fire missions. The family of its founder, Jack Gulati, has contributed $10,000-plus to Holden's re-election campaigns over the past six years. Employees of Fidelity's lobbying firm, PMA Group, have donated $63,225 to Holden campaigns since 2002, the Allentown Morning Call reports.

 

[Queasy]

"Most ethical Congress ever"

 

[Brainonska511]

$15 billion out of the ~$2.9 trillion is a little over 1/2 a percent of the budget. Earmarks are bad because they hide spending, but why are we squabbling over such a small expenditure. There are much greater sources of waste currently in the federal budget.

 

[Robor]

Bush's battle against earmarks began in earnest only after Democrats retook control of Congress last year. Now, rather than deal with him, Democrats are looking to deliver an earmark-laden, catchall spending bill to his successor early next year. McCain has already promised a veto. Obama has said he would force cuts.

So after the (R)'s lost control GWB decided to take action. I'm shocked!

Democrats say they are cutting earmarks by more than 40 percent below the 2006 budget bills passed when Republicans ran Congress. As important, they say, are House and Senate reforms requiring sponsors of earmarks to disclose them. That's made it easier for watchdog groups, reporters and the public to track the flow of lobbying influence and money. A Web site run by Taxpayers for Common Sense details earmarks, and one run by the Center for Responsive Politics tracks lobby registrations and campaign contributions.

:thumbsup:

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Queasy
"Most ethical Congress ever"

Is it a Democratic majority?

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511
$15 billion out of the ~$2.9 trillion is a little over 1/2 a percent of the budget. Earmarks are bad because they hide spending, but why are we squabbling over such a small expenditure. There are much greater sources of waste currently in the federal budget.

Sadly.. Politicians win when they get us to use their politically correct language

THEFT now is called "Waste"

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: Brainonska511
$15 billion out of the ~$2.9 trillion is a little over 1/2 a percent of the budget. Earmarks are bad because they hide spending, but why are we squabbling over such a small expenditure. There are much greater sources of waste currently in the federal budget.

Sadly.. Politicians win when they get us to use their politically correct language

THEFT now is called "Waste"

You're missing the forest for the trees. Earmarks are just a small problem in government spending. And it isn't necessarily theft, since it is getting spent in a constituent's district as a way to improve that area.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Queasy
"Most ethical Congress ever"

Is it a Democratic majority?

Isn't it 51/49?







That is until November!!!!!!!!!! :laugh:

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Queasy
"Most ethical Congress ever"

Is it a Democratic majority?

How long has that been in effect?

Which President has the WORST Pork record on record

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: Brainonska511
$15 billion out of the ~$2.9 trillion is a little over 1/2 a percent of the budget. Earmarks are bad because they hide spending, but why are we squabbling over such a small expenditure. There are much greater sources of waste currently in the federal budget.

Sadly.. Politicians win when they get us to use their politically correct language

THEFT now is called "Waste"

You're missing the forest for the trees. Earmarks are just a small problem in government spending. And it isn't necessarily theft, since it is getting spent in a constituent's district as a way to improve that area.

I understand what you are saying... feels like nothing can be done about the big or the small...

It IS theft if it is hidden in a Military Spending Bill... has nothing to do with Military Spending.. they are all crooks and always have been and always will be

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: Brainonska511
$15 billion out of the ~$2.9 trillion is a little over 1/2 a percent of the budget. Earmarks are bad because they hide spending, but why are we squabbling over such a small expenditure. There are much greater sources of waste currently in the federal budget.

Sadly.. Politicians win when they get us to use their politically correct language

THEFT now is called "Waste"

You're missing the forest for the trees. Earmarks are just a small problem in government spending. And it isn't necessarily theft, since it is getting spent in a constituent's district as a way to improve that area.

I understand what you are saying... feels like nothing can be done about the big or the small...

It IS theft if it is hidden in a Military Spending Bill... has nothing to do with Military Spending.. they are all crooks and always have been and always will be

It isn't theft if they hide spending A in unrelated bill C. It's part of the powers granted to Congress under the Constitution and part of the system of checks and balances that we have in place. Congressmen should take the time to read bills instead of bullsh1ting around; and if they can't read the whole thing, give parts of it to their loyal staff to go over.

 

[fskimospy]

Earmarks do not always equal pork. Nor do they always mean extra spending. Frequently earmarks are just there to tell agencies how to spend money they have already been allocated. It is also not theft in any way if it is in a military spending bill. As has been mentioned probably close to a dozen times by me, the bundling of legislation is a key component of political compromise and is an absolutely vital bulwark against excessive executive authority. It would be a crime if Congress were prevented from doing such things, and would be a large step towards an effective monarchy.

I also fail to see how the quantity of earmarks has anything to do with the 'most ethical Congress ever' statement in the context it was said. Not that I'm surprised at the pathetic attempt to conflate the two issues, just pointing it out.

 

[dahunan]

I will admit I am confused by the technical aspects of this...

So, you two are saying it is perfectly fine if a congressman wants a new playground built in his home state and he hides the request for monies for it deep within a Highway Spending Bill or Soldiers food budget bill etc??

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: dahunan
I will admit I am confused by the technical aspects of this...

So, you two are saying it is perfectly fine if a congressman wants a new playground built in his home state and he hides the request for monies for it deep within a Highway Spending Bill or Soldiers food budget bill etc??

I won't be happy if the congressman was using federal funds for something like that as it is not benefiting my district, but I wouldn't have a legal problem with it. The main issue I have is how states have been suckered into relying upon federal funds so that the federal government can stick its hands where they don't belong, like education, drinking laws, etc...

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: dahunan
I will admit I am confused by the technical aspects of this...

So, you two are saying it is perfectly fine if a congressman wants a new playground built in his home state and he hides the request for monies for it deep within a Highway Spending Bill or Soldiers food budget bill etc??

Yeap.

You're attempting to make it sound bad by saying the request is "hidden" as if nobody knew it was there. That's not really how things work. (at least not often) Every person representing a district has different priorities. In exchange for someone getting one thing they want, someone else gets something else that they want. The bills are frequently not even named a "highway spending bill" or something like that, they are just referred to in that way because it is the single largest emphasis of the bill.

To take away the give and take of lawmaking through some sort of artificial requirement of every aspect of a bill being related to some arbitrary name given it doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

To take away the give and take of lawmaking through some sort of artificial requirement of every aspect of a bill being related to some arbitrary name given it doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

and yet, somehow, about half of the states have done just that.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: eskimospy

To take away the give and take of lawmaking through some sort of artificial requirement of every aspect of a bill being related to some arbitrary name given it doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

and yet, somehow, about half of the states have done just that.

I'm not exactly sure what you are referring to, but either way are you attempting to argue that it's a good thing?