Earmarks, Corruption, Politics, and the New Congress

[Foxfyre]

According to Redstate this week, President Obama is praying Jim DeMints bill to ban earmarks will be defeated in the Senate. New Speaker John Boehner has pledged a policy of no earmarks in the House. Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell will not agree to an earmark ban.

The GOP has been heavily accused of hypocrisy when they voted against the stimulus package and then requested projects from it once it had passed. Republicans defend those requests by pointing out that their constituents will be paying for the package and therefore deserve their fair share of any 'stimulus' monies distributed.

There was this blurb in the Washington Post:

Rep. Pete Sessions, the firebrand conservative from Texas, has relentlessly assailed the Democratic stimulus efforts as a package of wasteful “trillion-dollar spending sprees” that was “more about stimulating the government and rewarding political allies than growing the economy and creating jobs.” But that didn’t stop the Republican lawmaker from seeking stimulus money behind the scenes for the Dallas suburb of Carrollton after the GOP campaign against the 2009 stimulus law quieted down.

Expect free spending liberals in the Obama Administration to portray themselves as to the right of the Senate Republican Conference on wasteful earmarks.

This this comment from the Heritage Foundation:

Brian Riedl of The Heritage Foundation points out that the FY2009 spending bill was loaded with earmarks and this is a bipartisan problem:

Although Democrats strongly criticized the proliferation of earmarks under Republican rule, they have made no serious efforts to pare them back. The omnibus bill spends $12.8 billion on 9,287 earmarks. When combined with the early 2009 spending bills ($16.1 billion spent on 2,627 earmarks, the 2009 total comes to 11,914 earmarks at a cost of $28.9 billion. This represents the second most earmarks-and the second highest cost-in American history.

Republicans and Democrats have both used the earmark as a means to funnel federal tax dollars to districts and states. The problem is that members of the Appropriations Committee like the practice and don’t want it to end.

In truth, almost all of the stimulus monies expended to date look like earmarks for somebody. And the fact is, as long as Congress brings in the money, they will spend it and most will attempt to do so for maximum political advantage for themselves. And in my opinion, that is corrupting both for government and for the beneficiaries of government largesse.

So for discussion, let's focus on one or more of the following:

1. Do you think of it as the government's money? Or the people's money? Or your money?

2.. Do you favor redistribution of wealth by Congress taking money from the people and reassigning it where they say it is most needed?

3. Would you prefer a policy in which Congress did no redistribution of wealth but left the people to spend the money as they see fit? Why?

4. What does Constitutionally limited government mean to you?

 

[westwall]

I started the ball rolling with my basic philosophy. The closest to my understanding is the government owns nothing. The People do. The government is allowed to run a few things for the people for our collective security (the Armed Forces) other than that the government is best kept locked in a box. Whenever it gets involved it invariably screws things up.

 

[Foxfyre]

Shoot, I screwed up and the poll isn't multiple choice unless a mod can fix that for us. Mods? Help?

 

[Big Black Dog]

Earmarks and corruption... I thought this was a thread about Democrats.

 

[Foxfyre]

Earmarks and corruption... I thought this was a thread about Democrats.

LOL. Nope. I'm open for everybody taking their lumps here.

 

[kyzr]

Earmarks is chump change. After the crooks appropriate the money, they want to skim a little for their districts.

On a serious note, I fully support the Debt Commissions recommendations. Its much better to do SOMETHING now rather than have the entire system collapse later.
I also hope Obama vetoes any tax cut extension. The government needs to cover their spending, and its better to have the wealthy pay their fair share. To hear them whine you'd think it was more than a few percent.
STOP WHINING ABOUT THE TAX BUMP. YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE HAD THE TAX CUT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

 

[Foxfyre]

Earmarks is chump change. After the crooks appropriate the money, they want to skim a little for their districts.

On a serious note, I fully support the Debt Commissions recommendations. Its much better to do SOMETHING now rather than have the entire system collapse later.
I also hope Obama vetoes any tax cut extension. The government needs to cover their spending, and its better to have the wealthy pay their fair share. To hear them whine you'd think it was more than a few percent.
STOP WHINING ABOUT THE TAX BUMP. YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE HAD THE TAX CUT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

I know I'm getting old, but $29 billion is still a lot of money to me. And that's just the part they admitted were earmarks.

I firmly believe there is a LOT of stuff hidden in all the budgets and appropriations bills that should be identified as earmarks but are disguised as something else.