Tired of the faux outrage and propaganda ?

[heyheybooboo]

One piece of legislation that Obama and the Godless Leftists (and John McCain) helped shepherd through Congress in 2006 was related to an online database so we, the people, could quickly access earmark information pertaining to spending bills to ""provide transparency and integrity in the earmark process"". The initial legislation was slated to build a database going back as long as 10 years IIRC but a 'compromise' was forged setting 2005 as the base year. Here is the reason in graphic form - an explosion of Congressional earmarks over the last 10 years.

So much for the faux outrage and propaganda from the ""fiscal conservatives,"" huh?

We should encourage our elected federal officials to maintain and expand the database in an expeditious manner to identify individual congressional sponsors of earmarks and list recipients/beneficiaries of funding.

Here is the website from the OMB and here is a current earmark scorecard (in thousands of dollars):

Agriculture and Rural Development

2005 Baseline . . . . $ 636,880
2008 . . . . $ 352,415
2009 . . . . $ 211,237

Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies

2005 Baseline . . . . $ 1,360,918
2008 . . . . $ 1,006,243
2009 . . . . $ 512,960

Defense

2005 Baseline . . . . $ 8,386,730
2008 . . . . $ 6,656,349
2009 . . . . $ not yet posted

Energy and Water Development

2005 Baseline . . . . $ 1,290,161
2008 . . . . $ 3,749,233
2009 . . . . $ 3,602,400

State and Foreign Operations

2005 Baseline . . . . $ 307,535
2008 . . . . $ 22,795
2009 . . . . $ not yet posted

Financial Services and General Government

2005 Baseline . . . . $ 177,329
2008 . . . . $ 226,240
2009 . . . . $ 94,875

Homeland Security

2005 Baseline . . . . $ 27,900
2008 . . . . $ 537,480
2009 . . . . $ 281,600

Interior and Environment

2005 Baseline . . . . $ 963,727
2008 . . . . $ 403,024
2009 . . . . $ not yet posted

Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education

2005 Baseline . . . . $ 1,279,606
2008 . . . . $ 955,345
2009 . . . . $ 607,170

Military Construction and Veterans Affairs

2005 Baseline . . . . $ 952,686
2008 . . . . $ 1,181,061
2009 . . . . $ 632,832

Transportation and Housing and Urban Development

2005 Baseline . . . . $ 3,559,376
2008 . . . . $ 1,781,754
2009 . . . . $ 954,676


Since the legislation was passed total Congressional funding for earmarks has been slashed nearly 50% and the total number has decreased substantially. This is a good trend.

But the Big Scam that overwhelms earmarks by individual Congress People are the earmarks introduced by the President himself in the annual budget submission and federal agency directives.

I feel certain that our new-found fiscal conservatives will swiftly update us as to these occurrences without any arm-twisting.

 

[blackangst1]

Thanks for that. I think part of the problem is also what is considered pork. For example, looking through this list, the expenditures for "Transportation and Housing and Urban Development " is pork. This is NOT the responsibility of the federal government at all. Same for education. Unfortunately the trend is for big brother to dictate and manage more of our daily lives than ever before, and it seems to be "OK" for people.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Thanks for that. I think part of the problem is also what is considered pork. For example, looking through this list, the expenditures for "Transportation and Housing and Urban Development " is pork. This is NOT the responsibility of the federal government at all. Same for education. Unfortunately the trend is for big brother to dictate and manage more of our daily lives than ever before, and it seems to be "OK" for people.

Pork has always been defined as "pet projects"

expenditures for HUD is not pork. It is simply a program you don't agree to nor approve of.

NOT pork however.

I'm tired of the faux outrage, propaganda, and ignorance. Maybe the OP should edit his title to include

Ignorance.

 

[Chunkee]

The database is nice and all, but how are we going to vouch for the integrity of the data on their? Shit, I can enter numbers all day, but whether or not they are appropriated as such is anyone's guess.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Thanks for that. I think part of the problem is also what is considered pork. For example, looking through this list, the expenditures for "Transportation and Housing and Urban Development " is pork. This is NOT the responsibility of the federal government at all. Same for education. Unfortunately the trend is for big brother to dictate and manage more of our daily lives than ever before, and it seems to be "OK" for people.

Pork has always been defined as "pet projects"

expenditures for HUD is not pork. It is simply a program you don't agree to nor approve of.

NOT pork however.

I'm tired of the faux outrage, propaganda, and ignorance. Maybe the OP should edit his title to include

Ignorance.

Fair enough

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: Chunkee
The database is nice and all, but how are we going to vouch for the integrity of the data on their? Shit, I can enter numbers all day, but whether or not they are appropriated as such is anyone's guess.

I share your cynicism, we can only hope this isn't "creative accounting'

 

[Throckmorton]

blackangst, what do you think the government's duties are? Point out what part of the Constitution your opinion is based on.
And explain how that kind of spending will be applied in your own personal plan for economic stimulus.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Thanks for that. I think part of the problem is also what is considered pork. For example, looking through this list, the expenditures for "Transportation and Housing and Urban Development " is pork. This is NOT the responsibility of the federal government at all. Same for education. Unfortunately the trend is for big brother to dictate and manage more of our daily lives than ever before, and it seems to be "OK" for people.

I don't necessarily disagree. Pork is tasty depending upon who is munching.

I do think we need 'structured' pork - a defined process that spreads all the goodness around.

$50 million per Senator equals $5 billion
($100 million per state)

$10 million per House member equals $4.35 billion
(effectively distributed by population)

Every state and House district feels the goodness - and local folks see their federal tax dollars at work.

 

[GroundedSailor]

As I've said before, one has to keep in mind what 'pork' really is:

Pork is spending in another politicians district.


Like OrByte said, It is simply a program you don't agree to nor approve of.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor
As I've said before, one has to keep in mind what 'pork' really is:

Pork is spending in another politicians district.


Like OrByte said, It is simply a program you don't agree to nor approve of.

It's just a new leg on Republican hypocrisy:

1) Faux Outrage and Propaganda
2) Personal Attacks and Fallacious Arguments
3) Pork and Ignorance

The level of funding has been reduced nearly 75% since 2005. The 'fauxscal conservatives' don't want us to know that so the noise machine screams, ""PORK PORK PORK.""

 

[kage69]

Thanks HHBB, that is definitely bookmark worthy. Nice to see it's not from some no name's blog. I'm going to make a point of passing this along to a coworker of mine who continually embarrasses himself by parroting the faux outrage so popular with talk radio nowadays.

 

[herkulease]

Hmm I'm looking at the website and I"m trying to see how you come up with your numbers. Most of them only have senate appropriations. While there will probably be some overlap with some house members. Isn't it a bit early to assume with they'll be less pork/earmarks whatever you want to call it.