Hillary Clinton's 261 Earmarks Lead All

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Topic Title: Hillary Clinton's 261 Earmarks Lead All

FALSE! The article does NOT say it was more earmarks than any other legistlator. Maybe you should check your reading comprehension. From the article at your link:

That was one of 261 earmarks Clinton personally helped usher through Congress. That's more earmarks than any other member of Congress seeking the presidency, according to an analysis by the watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW).

Originally posted by: Pabster[/i]

And this is the "agent of change" the American people are demanding? :roll:

Earmarks are a disgusting part of DC culture, and while both sides are guilty of bringing home the pork (read: buying votes), there are some egregious offenders. Hillary tops the charts, which makes her "change" bullshit all the more ludicrous.

I'm no fan of Hillary's, but like them or not, earmarks are part of the way things work, now. The question then becomes more about who received them, what they're intended to do and whether there was any illegal or unethical quid pro quo for them in exchange for supporting some mutli-million dollar bridge to nowhere.

A group that lobbies for needle exchanges, for allowing more immigrants with HIV/AIDS to legally enter the country, and for condom distribution in prisons received a $303,000 federal earmark pushed by Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.)
.
.
This specific appropriation is from the Department of Justice and is aimed at fighting methamphetamine use - that's what the Gay Men's Health Crisis Center is supposed to do with the taxpayer-funded money.

Clinton announced the grant in October 2007, a month after receiving a $750 donation and a $250 donation from Felix Lopez, an attorney for the Gay Men's Health Crisis and for a clinic based in New York

Hmmm... That earmark was appropriate for the intended purpose of the legislation. Do you really think her vote was swayed or the earmark was purchased for a lousy $750? :roll:

How much did she take from those who benefitted from her earmarks? Did she receive millions, or even hundreds of thousands of dollars , Was she financially connected to those who received them?The article says:

Earmarks and campaign cash

Most of Clinton's earmarks included organizations that did not have employees who donated to her campaign. But many cases were notable. Most organizations did not respond to requests for comment.

Did the projects receiving the earmarks do any good?

"Sen. Clinton is very proud to have helped New York-based projects that train nurses, improve our hospitals, help those suffering from 9/11-related health ailments, bolster national and homeland security, and provide our brave men and women in uniform with the resources they need to achieve the mission while keeping them safe," said Clinton's press secretary, Philippe Reines, in a written statement to Cybercast News Service.

Faculty and administrators at the New School, a university in New York - which received more than $2.9 million in earmarks with Clinton's name on them - gave a total of $5,100 to her campaign last year. New School President Bob Kerry is a vocal Clinton supporter.

Mitchell Rosenthall, listed as president of Phoenix House, a drug rehab center with an office in New York, gave Clinton's campaign $800 through donations in August and September. The omnibus bill approved by the Senate in October included a $601,000 earmark with Clinton's name on it for the Phoenix House.

In addition, Reynold Levy, president of the Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts, contributed $3,200 to Clinton last February. Clinton's name was on two earmarks worth a total of $890,000 for the Lincoln Center.

"I spoke with Reynold Levy, and he said there was no connection between the individual campaign contributions and earmarks," Lincoln Center Vice President of Public Relations Betsy Voice told Cybercast News Service in a written statement.

From all your posts about Hillary, it's obvious you've got a bug up your ass about her. I don't want to see her get the Democratic nomination, either, but if you're going to take shots at her, you may want to consider making them honest shots, not some bullshit misleading misinterpretation of a headline.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Topic: Hillary Clinton's 261 Earmarks Does Not Lead All

Fixed.

The Hypocrite-In-Chief, Commander Codpiece, hero of Pabs, Johnnie, Chickie, et. al., leads by a wide margin ...

... legislation funding the Department of the Interior shows that Bush requested 93 of the 321 earmarks in the bill

... general government spending bill showed that Bush requested 17 special projects worth $947 million, more than any single member of Congress.

... more than 350 earmarks in the military construction spending bill requested by the president

... ?It would appear the administration likes earmarks from their perspective,? said Rep. Robert Aderholt (Ala.), a Republican member of the House Appropriations Committee.

?Inconsistent would be a fair way to say it,? Aderholt said when asked if Bush was being hypocritical for simultaneously requesting and criticizing earmarks.

Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho), the chairman of the Senate Appropriations interior subcommittee, shares Aderholt?s view. ?Hypocrisy? No, but one might call that duplicity,? said Craig.

Legislators say that while Bush has warned them about earmarks, behind the scenes he seeks them just as eagerly as the members of Congress he criticizes.

?The White House has earmarks in everything,? said Rep. David Hobson (Ohio), ranking Republican on the Appropriations energy and water development subcommittee.

... Bush has requested the overwhelming majority of earmarks ? over 800 ? in the energy and water appropriations bill. In a floor speech delivered last week, Obey said that in fiscal 2006 Bush asked for 987 specific earmark projects ...

Bush called out for his earmarks

duplicity
du·plic·i·ty

1. deceitfulness in speech or conduct; speaking or acting in two different ways concerning the same matter with intent to deceive; double-dealing.
2. a twofold or double state or quality.

I guess ol' Dumbya has a w-i-d-e s-t-a-n-c-e on the matter of earmarks ... ...

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Topic: Hillary Clinton's 261 Earmarks Does Not Lead All

Fixed.

The Hypocrite-In-Chief, Commander Codpiece, hero of Pabs, Johnnie, Chickie, et. al., leads by a wide margin ...

... legislation funding the Department of the Interior shows that Bush requested 93 of the 321 earmarks in the bill

... general government spending bill showed that Bush requested 17 special projects worth $947 million, more than any single member of Congress.

... more than 350 earmarks in the military construction spending bill requested by the president

... ?It would appear the administration likes earmarks from their perspective,? said Rep. Robert Aderholt (Ala.), a Republican member of the House Appropriations Committee.

?Inconsistent would be a fair way to say it,? Aderholt said when asked if Bush was being hypocritical for simultaneously requesting and criticizing earmarks.

Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho), the chairman of the Senate Appropriations interior subcommittee, shares Aderholt?s view. ?Hypocrisy? No, but one might call that duplicity,? said Craig.

Legislators say that while Bush has warned them about earmarks, behind the scenes he seeks them just as eagerly as the members of Congress he criticizes.

?The White House has earmarks in everything,? said Rep. David Hobson (Ohio), ranking Republican on the Appropriations energy and water development subcommittee.

... Bush has requested the overwhelming majority of earmarks ? over 800 ? in the energy and water appropriations bill. In a floor speech delivered last week, Obey said that in fiscal 2006 Bush asked for 987 specific earmark projects ...

Bush called out for his earmarks

duplicity
du·plic·i·ty

1. deceitfulness in speech or conduct; speaking or acting in two different ways concerning the same matter with intent to deceive; double-dealing.
2. a twofold or double state or quality.

I guess ol' Dumbya has a w-i-d-e s-t-a-n-c-e on the matter of earmarks ... ...

Last year, I personally "requested" 4,312 earmarks, in a variety of bills. However, like Bush, I was unable to get any of them written into the bills... something about "having to be an actual member of Congress," or something... crazy, eh?

It's fun to watch you and techs dance though... that's always good for a laugh!

Buh-buh-buh-buh-but Bush!!!

 

[heyheybooboo]

Do you have a point, PH ???

I guess you don't ...

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Do you have a point, PH ???

I guess you don't ...

The bottom line is that earmarks make a lot of people angry, and HRC's incredibly high number of them may indicate that she's the last person we need to fix our spending habits -- not that this is something unexpected, or new...

 

[Jhhnn]

Heh. The Hillary-haters are out in force...

261 earmarks? So what? I'll bet they didn't add up to the price of one of the Repub stalwarts' pet project- Ted Stevens' bridge to nowhere...

And it's easy to rant and rave about earmarks in general, even though they're very, very small potatoes in the overall scheme of things... How much is the total earmark bill in the current budget? How much for the occupation of Iraq? How much for gee-whiz coldwar military hardware? Farm subsidies? Big Pharma welfare in the form of the "Senior drug benefit?"

Keep your eye on the change in the drawer, forget that your rightwing pals are emptying out the safe in the back...

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Last year, I personally "requested" 4,312 earmarks, in a variety of bills. However, like Bush, I was unable to get any of them written into the bills... something about "having to be an actual member of Congress," or something... crazy, eh?

It's fun to watch you and techs dance though... that's always good for a laugh!

Buh-buh-buh-buh-but Bush!!!

You are attempting to make the argument that the President has no power to influence what is written into legislation.

That is obviously false.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Do you have a point, PH ???

I guess you don't ...

The bottom line is that earmarks make a lot of people angry, and HRC's incredibly high number of them may indicate that she's the last person we need to fix our spending habits -- not that this is something unexpected, or new...

I'm not defending earmarks - or HRC - but comparing $17bil/yr of total pork with $500bil/yr of Federal debt this century is a bad joke - as is the Pabbie babble of "" ...there are some egregious offenders. Hillary tops the charts, which makes her "change" bullshit all the more ludicrous..""

I will submit that if you eliminate the $500bil/year Federal debt though a combination of spending cuts and revenue increases most people won't give a sheet about $17bil/yr in earmarks. WTF - in a few years we will be paying over $400bil/yr in interest on debt thanks to the borrow and spend Contards ...

As a matter of fact if they fixed the ^%@! debt I wouldn't care if each Senator got $50mil/yr in ""discretionary"" funding to use in their state any way they want (within reason )- it's less than one percent of the current Federal debt each year ...

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
How much is the total earmark bill in the current budget? How much for the occupation of Iraq? How much for gee-whiz coldwar military hardware? Farm subsidies? Big Pharma welfare in the form of the "Senior drug benefit?"

... the 2008 spending bills signed by Mr. Bush include more than 11,700 earmarks, totaling $16.9 billion. By the White House count, the number was down 1,754 from 2005, and the amount of money was down $2.1 billion, or 11 percent.

 

[theeedude]

Let's face it. It's part of her job in the Senate to bring home the federal projects for her constituents, and she got it done. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

 

[Genx87]

Good to see the pathetic apologists have managed to make this Bush's fault.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Good to see the pathetic apologists have managed to make this Bush's fault.

How many earmark laden bills did he veto when GOP was in charge of Congress?

 

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: Skitzer
Who's surprised by this?

Not I.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Good to see we pathetic Bush apologists have managed to make this anyone but our own borrow and spend tax-cut republican fault.

Fixed

 

[blackangst1]

Hillary, Queen of Earmarks

Posted Jun 15th 2007 11:21AM by Patrick Casey
Filed under: President 2008, Democrats, Hillary Clinton, Earmarks

Presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) has secured more earmarks in the fiscal 2008 defense authorization bill than any other Democrat except for panel Chairman Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.).

The bill contains about $5.4 billion in earmarks, or projects not requested by the Pentagon. With their slim majority, the Democrats on the panel claimed two-thirds of that sum. Clinton is among their more junior members.


edit:

SENATE CONTINUES TO BRING HOME THE BACON IN FY08 LABOR-HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES-EDUCATION SPENDING BILL

Washington, D.C. ? Despite the recent public outcry over Congressional earmarks, the Senate FY 2008 Senate Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education spending bill continues the time honored tradition of bringing home the bacon. The bill contains 1,038 earmarks at a cost of $562.9 million. Overall funding in the bill is $605.5 billion, making it the largest non-defense appropriations measure. The amount allocated is $9.1 billion more than the President?s request and $59.8 billion more than FY 2007 Budget.


I wish the public would wake the fuck up and not hire the same lying crooks election after election. You can call it GWB's fault, you can call it the Senate's fault, but it is not. IT IS THE PUBLIC'S FAULT.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
For the record, I have no problem with $303,000 going towards fighting AIDS and meth addictions, but that still doesnt excuse the crazy total number of earmarks attributed to Clinton.... i mean... wow.

261!?!? jeebus!

You mean the 303 thousand didn't go to the destruction of Christian marriage?

 

[Moonbeam]

The earmarks undoubtedly signify her political gifts. The more you have the better politician you are. Serving her constituents.

 

[Jhhnn]

Thanks for the numbers, heyheybooboo-

A little basic math reveals that total earmarks are ~.63% (less than 1%) of the total federal budget.

Or, the usual anti-tax ravers going on and on about what's basically chump change.

Wake me when they start talking about real money, like the total outlays for the military...

Shee-it, Sherlock, defense contractors will likely post more profit than that from a one year occupation of Iraq... a lot more...

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: palehorse74
For the record, I have no problem with $303,000 going towards fighting AIDS and meth addictions, but that still doesnt excuse the crazy total number of earmarks attributed to Clinton.... i mean... wow.

261!?!? jeebus!

You mean the 303 thousand didn't go to the destruction of Christian marriage?

Am i a Christian? What do i care?!

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: NeoV
she tops the charts of the presidential candidates, not the entire congress

I'm not making excuses for her either, but this is only in comparison to the other people running for President right now

also from the Article

"2008 is the first year that members of Congress have to put their names on earmarks."

How is that possible? Why?

I really think we need to start from scratch on our entire governmental structure and process

Nah, we just need a good budget amendment to address all these problems.

1. Require that congress submit a balanced budget, could require that spending be equal to or less than the previous years revenue so congress can?t fudge the numbers. Congress would be allowed to pass supplemental spending bills only if there is a project surplus, this would allow them to spend 100% of all money collected.
2. Give the President a line item veto on spending only which will allow him to cross out individual spending requests, but only require a simple majority to over rule him on these items.
3. Require that any and all tax increases and government ?fees? need a 3/5ths majority to pass to prevent congress from taxing its way out of trouble.

That would be a good start.

 

[nageov3t]

2. Give the President a line item veto on spending only which will allow him to cross out individual spending requests, but only require a simple majority to over rule him on these items.

seems like that would prevent the minority party from doing *anything* in a situation where one party controls the house, senate, and executive.

 

[ProfJohn]

^ there is an argument out there that refutes what you are saying, but I am too tired to look for it. As it is now the majority can leave the minority 100% out in the cold if it wanted anyway, at least in the house. So nothing would really change.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
^ there is an argument out there that refutes what you are saying, but I am too tired to look for it. As it is now the majority can leave the minority 100% out in the cold if it wanted anyway, at least in the house. So nothing would really change.

Line item veto is a horrible idea. It would be a colossal increase in the power of the executive branch compared to the legislature. Even if it only requires a simple majority to overrule it is such a huge club as to be massively damaging to the power of the 'coequal' branch. (and lets face it, the executive is already far beyond what should be the limits of its power as it is)

 

[Oceandevi]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Clinton Grants $303,000 to Gay Lobby Group

:thumbsup:

:thumbsdown:

 

[ericlp]

The only dancing I want to watch is pabster, Phorse and proJ do the tango when Hillery takes office!


I could care less who wins, I'm voting with the majority but I will find it all funny to watch!

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: loki8481

2. Give the President a line item veto on spending only which will allow him to cross out individual spending requests, but only require a simple majority to over rule him on these items.

I'm pretty sure that he line item veto has been ruled unconstitutional because it effectively transfers the Constitutional budgeting responsibilty of the Legislative to the Exec branch.

The "simple majority to over rule" thingy sounds totally stupid. I mean, jeebus, the only way the bill would've gotten to the President anyway was because of that "simple majority" (and some, due to the anti-filibusters majority to allow the bill to be voted upon)

seems like that would prevent the minority party from doing *anything* in a situation where one party controls the house, senate, and executive.

Huh? Why the h3ll would a Pres veto a bill from his own (party controlled) Legislators? The whole veto thing pretty much goes out the window when one party controls all the branches.

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
^ there is an argument out there that refutes what you are saying, but I am too tired to look for it. As it is now the majority can leave the minority 100% out in the cold if it wanted anyway, at least in the house. So nothing would really change.

Yeah, other than in instances where the party in power lacks a super majority and needs enough votes to close off debate and bring the bill to a vote (anti-fillibuster)

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Line item veto is a horrible idea. Yeah, I think it would prolly lead to all kinds of horrible unintended consequences It would be a colossal increase in the power of the executive branch compared to the legislature.Yeah, so it won't happen Even if it only requires a simple majority to overrule it is such a huge club as to be massively damaging to the power of the 'coequal' branch Here I disagree. IMO the "simple majority" over-ride would mean the line item is useless (and lets face it, the executive is already far beyond what should be the limits of its power as it is)
I'm not about that. Congress has been able over the decades to whittle away at presidential powers. IMO, Presidential powers are over-rated

Fern