Six of the top ten Senate ?porkers? are Republican

[DealMonkey]

At minimum, this sort of behavior will make it difficult for the GOP to rail against pork, when they're clearly engaging in it themselves.

Six of the top ten Senate ?porkers? are Republican

Taxpayers for Common Sense released a database Monday of the 8,570 earmarks, totaling $7.7 billion, in the FY09 omnibus spending bill.

Remember all that talk last week about Republicans ?learning the error of their ways? and promising to embrace fiscal responsibility? Well, it seems six of the ten biggest recepients of earmarks just happen to be Republicans.

Perhaps a Republican will insert an earmark using taxpayer money to build a ?Museum of Empty Promises.? They could enshrine ?we?ll cut spending if you just put us back in power? next to Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton?s ?she meant nothing, it?ll never happen again.?

SENATOR EARMARK $$
Byrd (D-WV) $122,804,900
Shelby (R-AL) $114,484,250
Bond (R-MO) $85,691,491
Feinstein (D-CA) $76,899,425
Cochran (R-MS) $75,908,475
Murkowski (R-AK) $74,000,750
Harkin (D-IA) $66,860,000
Inhofe (R-OK) $53,133,500
McConnell (R-KY) $51,186,000
Inouye (D-HI) $46,380,205

http://www.smallgovtimes.com/2...orkers-are-republican/

If only the GOP could line up in unison against earmarks like they lined up 100% against Obama's stim package. D'oh!

 

[Kirby]

Anyway to find out what the particular earmark is?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
At minimum, this sort of behavior will make it difficult for the GOP to rail against pork, when they're clearly engaging in it themselves.

Six of the top ten Senate ?porkers? are Republican

Taxpayers for Common Sense released a database Monday of the 8,570 earmarks, totaling $7.7 billion, in the FY09 omnibus spending bill.

Remember all that talk last week about Republicans ?learning the error of their ways? and promising to embrace fiscal responsibility? Well, it seems six of the ten biggest recepients of earmarks just happen to be Republicans.

Perhaps a Republican will insert an earmark using taxpayer money to build a ?Museum of Empty Promises.? They could enshrine ?we?ll cut spending if you just put us back in power? next to Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton?s ?she meant nothing, it?ll never happen again.?

SENATOR EARMARK $$
Byrd (D-WV) $122,804,900
Shelby (R-AL) $114,484,250
Bond (R-MO) $85,691,491
Feinstein (D-CA) $76,899,425
Cochran (R-MS) $75,908,475
Murkowski (R-AK) $74,000,750
Harkin (D-IA) $66,860,000
Inhofe (R-OK) $53,133,500
McConnell (R-KY) $51,186,000
Inouye (D-HI) $46,380,205

http://www.smallgovtimes.com/2...orkers-are-republican/

If only the GOP could line up in unison against earmarks like they lined up 100% against Obama's stim package. D'oh!

Regardless of party....why the hell are the Dems allowing all this pork? Who's driving this bus?

 

[TallBill]

This just in, 10 of 10 were from one of the major American political parties.

 

[Skitzer]

Don't care what party it is ..... it is wrong and needs to be corrected before being passed.
It's there .... we know it ....... we need these pork/earmark projects like we need a hole in the head.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: Skitzer
Don't care what party it is ..... it is wrong and needs to be corrected before being passed.
It's there .... we know it ....... we need these pork/earmark projects like we need a hole in the head.

I make use of the holes in my head

 

[alchemize]

"I'm going to go through spending bills line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely."

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: alchemize
"I'm going to go through spending bills line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely."

Earmarks are not inherently pork, nor are they inherently unwise spending. While I'm sure plenty of these are that, the conflation of earmarks and pork is silly.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: alchemize
"I'm going to go through spending bills line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely."

I believe the excuse du jour is that this bill is unfinished '09 business and his new hatred of earmarks will kick in for any new spending bills. Meaning '10 bills and going forward.

 

[Thump553]

I have a problem with the automatic assumption that all earmarks are pork. Earmarks are the ONLY way Congress can be sure money will be spent on a specific project versus what some bureaucrat in the White House decides.

I think my Congressman has a bit more of a clue as to what my district needs than some Washington bureaucrat-after all, that's why Congress exists in the first place.

Note: I am not trying to defend what either Byrd or Shelby has earmarked, at least not without reviewing them. Byrd is the king of earmarks (now that Stevens is gone) and Alaska is a welfare state with libertarian pretensions.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: nkgreen
Anyway to find out what the particular earmark is?

These folks have a downloadable excel spreadsheet. You might try that:

http://www.taxpayer.net/resour...n=Headlines%20By%20TCS

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Thump553
I have a problem with the automatic assumption that all earmarks are pork. Earmarks are the ONLY way Congress can be sure money will be spent on a specific project versus what some bureaucrat in the White House decides.

I think my Congressman has a bit more of a clue as to what my district needs than some Washington bureaucrat-after all, that's why Congress exists in the first place.

Note: I am not trying to defend what either Byrd or Shelby has earmarked, at least not without reviewing them. Byrd is the king of earmarks (now that Stevens is gone) and Alaska is a welfare state with libertarian pretensions.

I tend to agree and in general feel that earmarks are such a small portion of spending (1%-2% max) that it's being blown out of proportion. Still, if you're going to rail against earmarks as a party, as the GOP does, you better not be engaging in earmarking. That's really the big issue here.

 

[Lemon law]

Earmarks are just a process to get legislation through. The object of the stimulus bill is to stimulate the economy. Some of those ear marks may qualify as legitimate stimulus and others may meet the nothing other than 100% pure pork criteria. And that judgment may also depend on the beholder.

And for that matter, the same can be said of the non earmark sections of the stimulus bill, and given the fact that only 2% of the stimulus bill spending comes from earmarks, frothing at the mouth over earmarks may not be that rational of an approach.

 

[OCGuy]

100% of the Presidents who have to approve such a thing are (D).

 

[Zebo]

Better get while you can this econommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee is going down. Be lucky to get a loaf of bread soon.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
100% of the Presidents who have to approve such a thing are (D).

Wrong wrong and wrong, GWB and Ronald Reagan are in the lead in that category, GWB's transportation bill was overloaded with pork and earmarks.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
100% of the Presidents who have to approve such a thing are (D).

Wrong wrong and wrong, GWB and Ronald Reagan are in the lead in that category, GWB's transportation bill was overloaded with pork and earmarks.

Dear Lemon Law,

Today is March 4th, 2009. There is only one (1) United States President. His name is Barack Obama. Please feel free to come forward with any other inquiries if you are still confused.


Thank You,

Ocguy31

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Thump553
I have a problem with the automatic assumption that all earmarks are pork. Earmarks are the ONLY way Congress can be sure money will be spent on a specific project versus what some bureaucrat in the White House decides.

I think my Congressman has a bit more of a clue as to what my district needs than some Washington bureaucrat-after all, that's why Congress exists in the first place.

Note: I am not trying to defend what either Byrd or Shelby has earmarked, at least not without reviewing them. Byrd is the king of earmarks (now that Stevens is gone) and Alaska is a welfare state with libertarian pretensions.

I tend to agree and in general feel that earmarks are such a small portion of spending (1%-2% max) that it's being blown out of proportion. Still, if you're going to rail against earmarks as a party, as the GOP does, you better not be engaging in earmarking. That's really the big issue here.

Agree. I tend not to like them as they often are covers for political paybacks which could be a means of political corruption. And this is one reason why the GOP had its butt handed to it this last election cycle. If you say something, you better back it up.

 

[chess9]

Originally posted by: Thump553
I have a problem with the automatic assumption that all earmarks are pork. Earmarks are the ONLY way Congress can be sure money will be spent on a specific project versus what some bureaucrat in the White House decides.

I think my Congressman has a bit more of a clue as to what my district needs than some Washington bureaucrat-after all, that's why Congress exists in the first place.

Note: I am not trying to defend what either Byrd or Shelby has earmarked, at least not without reviewing them. Byrd is the king of earmarks (now that Stevens is gone) and Alaska is a welfare state with libertarian pretensions.

Yes, earmarks are a small part of the budget, but this is a federal budget, not a state budget. Furthermore, notice that the top Republicans are getting the largest slices of the PORK PIE? Same for the Dems. The privileges of rank are, erm, RANK. And, most of these projects have no national significance. While I might enjoy midnight shuffleboard for beautiful downtown St. Petersburg, I think it qualifies as pork. The vast majority of these projects are:

1. Not critical at a time WE ARE BROKE (repeat after me);
2. Not otherwise critical or even necessary;
3. Are done to essentially bribe the congressman's constituency to vote for them next time voting comes around;

These pork barrel polkas pervert the governmental process as much as Wall Street and Oil Lobbyists do. They are a festering sore on the body politic.

Please don't forget, WE ARE BROKE. AS IN BANKRUPT. Why do so few people understand this simple idea?

-Robert

 

[eleison]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
100% of the Presidents who have to approve such a thing are (D).

Wrong wrong and wrong, GWB and Ronald Reagan are in the lead in that category, GWB's transportation bill was overloaded with pork and earmarks.

Dear Lemon Law,

Today is March 4th, 2009. There is only one (1) United States President. His name is Barack Obama. Please feel free to come forward with any other inquiries if you are still confused.


Thank You,

Ocguy31

 

[Fern]

Six of the top ten Senate ?porkers? are Republican

I have a hard time believing this.

The Repubs haven't had control of Congress since 2006.

They have no Committee Chairs etc.

Whatever earmarks are in a bill are there with Dem approval, and I don't know why they'd approve more earmaks for Repubs than their fellow Dems.

I can only guess that (1) they are projects that Dems wanted and would have sponsored themselves if representing that district, and/or (2) typical 'horse trading' - earmarks in return for some support/vote ('bribery').

Otherwise, I think the list of their earmarks would have to be examined to make sense of this.



Fern

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Title: Six of the top ten Senate ?porkers? are Republican

If only the GOP could line up in unison against earmarks like they lined up 100% against Obama's stim package. D'oh!

The Vote 30/32 votes against pork were Republican.

 

[palehorse]

All 10 are in the wrong.

I'm still waiting to see Obama go "line by line" through every bill... after all, it's one of the f'n reasons I voted for him! :|

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: palehorse
All 10 are in the wrong.

I'm still waiting to see Obama go "line by line" through every bill... after all, it's one of the f'n reasons I voted for him! :|

This only mentions earmarks, and earmarks aren't bad. They are ways for the Legislature to direct spending, so unless you think that Congress should just give block grants of funding to the executive (a massive and unprecedented surrender of power), what do you suggest?

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
At minimum, this sort of behavior will make it difficult for the GOP to rail against pork, when they're clearly engaging in it themselves.

Six of the top ten Senate ?porkers? are Republican

Taxpayers for Common Sense released a database Monday of the 8,570 earmarks, totaling $7.7 billion, in the FY09 omnibus spending bill.

Remember all that talk last week about Republicans ?learning the error of their ways? and promising to embrace fiscal responsibility? Well, it seems six of the ten biggest recepients of earmarks just happen to be Republicans.

Perhaps a Republican will insert an earmark using taxpayer money to build a ?Museum of Empty Promises.? They could enshrine ?we?ll cut spending if you just put us back in power? next to Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton?s ?she meant nothing, it?ll never happen again.?

SENATOR EARMARK $$
Byrd (D-WV) $122,804,900
Shelby (R-AL) $114,484,250
Bond (R-MO) $85,691,491
Feinstein (D-CA) $76,899,425
Cochran (R-MS) $75,908,475
Murkowski (R-AK) $74,000,750
Harkin (D-IA) $66,860,000
Inhofe (R-OK) $53,133,500
McConnell (R-KY) $51,186,000
Inouye (D-HI) $46,380,205

http://www.smallgovtimes.com/2...orkers-are-republican/

If only the GOP could line up in unison against earmarks like they lined up 100% against Obama's stim package. D'oh!

count me in. I dont care if the pork is Repub pork or Dem Pork.
Do You?