Earmarks in spending bill cut by one third

[DiamondDave]

But deeper reading shows it does not look like a reduction in spending... but a reduction in the numbers of things spent on with more remaining undisclosed (without a specific name to whom to attribute the earmarked money) making the spending total greater... and as stated, with a lot of things thrown into the stimulus that would have normally been put as earmarks in the various upcoming bills. The government still spending like a drunken sailor, just trying to be more creative to fool more people

 

[DiamondDave]

Yep.. .with a little more reading... easy to see it is not a reduction in spending at all.... but the media trying to spin it that way.. wonder what politician pulled a favor to get the headline written as it was?

 

[saveliberty]

I can see the new "stimulus" ploy will be used for quite some time. Spending like water, just like before.

 

[Zander]

It is child psychology. If you tell a child (the American public) that you (congress) are going to punish them by giving them 10 spanks across their butt, then only give them 7....

 

[The Rabbi]

Congressional 'earmarks' in spending bills cut by a third - USATODAY.com

WASHINGTON — The 2010 federal spending bills disclose $10.2 billion for pet projects inserted by members of Congress, a drop of nearly a third since 2008, an analysis of the bills shows.
The 9,297 "earmarks" reported in spending legislation for 2010 were down from 11,282 reported for the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, according to data compiled by the non-partisan watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense. The 2009 earmarks were worth $14.3 billion.

Wait. I thought the Dems were running *against* earmarks and promised to reform the whole system.

Monday, Nov. 13, 2006 11:51 a.m. EST

Nancy Pelosi: Identify Earmarks

Rep. Nancy Pelosi says her first agenda item after becoming Speaker of the House will be a vote requiring lawmakers who sponsor "earmarks” to be identified.

Earmarks are provisions, inserted in larger bills, that allocate funds for specific projects. Many of these provisions are considered "pork,” but lawmakers are currently not required to identify themselves as the sponsor of an earmark.

"There has to be transparency,” the California Democrat told USA Today. "I’d just as soon do away with all [earmarks], but that probably isn’t realistic.”

The number of earmarks in appropriations bills has tripled in the past decade to about 16,000 in 2005.

House Republican leaders approved a sponsor disclosure rule in September, but no sponsors have yet been identified because the rule effectively exempted bills that dictate spending for 2007. That rule expires at the end of the year, so Democrats would have to pass a new disclosure requirement.

 

[uscitizen]

Congressional 'earmarks' in spending bills cut by a third - USATODAY.com

WASHINGTON — The 2010 federal spending bills disclose $10.2 billion for pet projects inserted by members of Congress, a drop of nearly a third since 2008, an analysis of the bills shows.
The 9,297 "earmarks" reported in spending legislation for 2010 were down from 11,282 reported for the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, according to data compiled by the non-partisan watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense. The 2009 earmarks were worth $14.3 billion.

Wait. I thought the Dems were running *against* earmarks and promised to reform the whole system.

Monday, Nov. 13, 2006 11:51 a.m. EST

Nancy Pelosi: Identify Earmarks

Rep. Nancy Pelosi says her first agenda item after becoming Speaker of the House will be a vote requiring lawmakers who sponsor "earmarks” to be identified.

Earmarks are provisions, inserted in larger bills, that allocate funds for specific projects. Many of these provisions are considered "pork,” but lawmakers are currently not required to identify themselves as the sponsor of an earmark.

"There has to be transparency,” the California Democrat told USA Today. "I’d just as soon do away with all [earmarks], but that probably isn’t realistic.”

The number of earmarks in appropriations bills has tripled in the past decade to about 16,000 in 2005.

House Republican leaders approved a sponsor disclosure rule in September, but no sponsors have yet been identified because the rule effectively exempted bills that dictate spending for 2007. That rule expires at the end of the year, so Democrats would have to pass a new disclosure requirement.

so the republicans will not sponsor the bill?

 

[rightwinger]

Typical right wing attacks..

Cut earmarks by 1/3 and they want all earmarks cut
Cut the impact of lobbyists in the administration and they want all lobbyists cut
Create a more transparent administration and they demand complete transparency
Cut job losses from 700,000 a month to 11,000 a month and they want all losses stopped

What we have seen is just the first year. Lets see where we are after four years. Of course when the Republicans were in charge, these were all non issues

 

[Zoom-boing]

From the article:

Still, the spending bills contain billions of dollars for other special-interest programs that aren't reported as earmarks.

Ellis also noted that the $787 billion economic stimulus package passed last year included billions of dollars for projects often funded with earmarks.

They SPENT $10.2 billion for pet projects.


And there's this:

Lawmakers set aside more than $4 billion in earmarks in the just-approved 2010 defense appropriations bill, and watered down efforts to curb the practice of targeting spending for programs in members' districts.

Defense Bill Earmarks Total $4 Billion - WSJ.com

Barry said no wasteful spending, no porky pork . . . Barry lied.

 

[uscitizen]

The earmarking total for 2010 represented a 14% drop from last year's defense bill, according to an analysis by Taxpayers for Common Sense, a watchdog group that is critical of the process. The House included language in its defense bill that could subject earmarks for for-profit companies to full and open competition. But the Senate resisted, meaning that senators apparently will continue to set aside spending for favored companies, the group said.

~
As usual, many of the top recipients of earmarks in the defense bill were high-ranking appropriators: Mr. Inouye got 37 earmarks totaling $198.2 million, while ranking Republican Thad Cochran (R., Miss.) got 45 totaling $167 million. Mr. Inouye also is chairman of the defense subcommittee, and Mr. Cochran is the ranking member.

~
On the House side, defense subcommittee chairman John Murtha (D., Pa.) sponsored 23 earmarks totaling $76.5 million, while ranking Republican C.W. "Bill" Young got 36 totaling $83.7 million, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense.

~
Mr. Obama persuaded lawmakers not to add funding earmarks to the $787 billion stimulus package that Congress approved earlier this year. Not long after that, Congress approved a $410 billion spending bill that was full of earmarks.

Defense Bill Earmarks Total $4 Billion - WSJ.com

 

[Care4all]

Darn righties would complain if you hung them with new ropes.

I heard no such complaints from 2001-2005 or so out of them.

Seems to me I remember OL'BO saying there would be NO EARMARKS when he became President. KInda like the OPEN and Transparant Govt and HEARINGS ON C-SPAN also. Wonder when all that comes to pass???

NOPE, he never said that...Mccain did say that, but NOT Obama.

 

[saveliberty]

Darn righties would complain if you hung them with new ropes.

I heard no such complaints from 2001-2005 or so out of them.

Seems to me I remember OL'BO saying there would be NO EARMARKS when he became President. KInda like the OPEN and Transparant Govt and HEARINGS ON C-SPAN also. Wonder when all that comes to pass???

NOPE, he never said that...Mccain did say that, but NOT Obama.

And while the Obama Administration is turning a blind eye to the 2009 earmarks, White House officials say they fully expect Congress to live up to Obama's campaign pledge of reducing earmarks to below 1994 levels — when the GOP took control of the House — or less than $7.8 billion a year. "They have got to draw a line in the sand, and they didn't do it here," says Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense. "They have got to draw it in 2010 or it's irrelevant, whatever the promises are."

Read more: Does Obama Have a Double Standard on Earmarks? - TIME

Hair splitting in my opinon cares4all. I clearly remember this statement:

"Absolutely, we need earmark reform. And when I'm president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely." Barack Obama, September 26, 2008

Obama's "No Earmarks" Promise Broken - Associated Content - associatedcontent.com

In the context it was delivered, it left me with the impression he would veto bills with pork.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Congressional 'earmarks' in spending bills cut by a third - USATODAY.com

WASHINGTON — The 2010 federal spending bills disclose $10.2 billion for pet projects inserted by members of Congress, a drop of nearly a third since 2008, an analysis of the bills shows.
The 9,297 "earmarks" reported in spending legislation for 2010 were down from 11,282 reported for the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, according to data compiled by the non-partisan watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense. The 2009 earmarks were worth $14.3 billion.

A step in the right direction, no matter who takes it. And I am glad to hear it.

 

[Xenophon]

They don't need them in spending bills, they now get plenty in 'stimulous', 'cap & trade' and 'barrycare'.

In short, this is more fun with numbers bullshit.

 

[The Rabbi]

Congressional 'earmarks' in spending bills cut by a third - USATODAY.com

WASHINGTON — The 2010 federal spending bills disclose $10.2 billion for pet projects inserted by members of Congress, a drop of nearly a third since 2008, an analysis of the bills shows.
The 9,297 "earmarks" reported in spending legislation for 2010 were down from 11,282 reported for the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, according to data compiled by the non-partisan watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense. The 2009 earmarks were worth $14.3 billion.

Wait. I thought the Dems were running *against* earmarks and promised to reform the whole system.

Monday, Nov. 13, 2006 11:51 a.m. EST

Nancy Pelosi: Identify Earmarks

Rep. Nancy Pelosi says her first agenda item after becoming Speaker of the House will be a vote requiring lawmakers who sponsor "earmarks” to be identified.

Earmarks are provisions, inserted in larger bills, that allocate funds for specific projects. Many of these provisions are considered "pork,” but lawmakers are currently not required to identify themselves as the sponsor of an earmark.

"There has to be transparency,” the California Democrat told USA Today. "I’d just as soon do away with all [earmarks], but that probably isn’t realistic.”

The number of earmarks in appropriations bills has tripled in the past decade to about 16,000 in 2005.

House Republican leaders approved a sponsor disclosure rule in September, but no sponsors have yet been identified because the rule effectively exempted bills that dictate spending for 2007. That rule expires at the end of the year, so Democrats would have to pass a new disclosure requirement.

so the republicans will not sponsor the bill?

That was back in '06. See the dateline on the story.
SO now the Dums have been in control of Congress for 4 years and what have they done? Cut the number of earmarks from an astronomical level to an outrageous level.
Transparancy? What's that? I thought Nancy said there would be more transparancy? I thought Obama said, repeatedly, that negotiations would be broadcase and not held in some back room somewhere.
I guess those are sooo last year because we have the least transparent, least accountable Congress in history. Their approval ratings make Pres Bush's look good.

 

[uscitizen]

Wait. I thought the Dems were running *against* earmarks and promised to reform the whole system.

so the republicans will not sponsor the bill?

That was back in '06. See the dateline on the story.
SO now the Dums have been in control of Congress for 4 years and what have they done? Cut the number of earmarks from an astronomical level to an outrageous level.
Transparancy? What's that? I thought Nancy said there would be more transparancy? I thought Obama said, repeatedly, that negotiations would be broadcase and not held in some back room somewhere.
I guess those are sooo last year because we have the least transparent, least accountable Congress in history. Their approval ratings make Pres Bush's look good.

right, so why did none of the repubs sponsor the bill?
The timeframe fits into my argument of hypocracisy in the right for ignoring it then and going ballistic on it now.

 

[Oldandtired]

Typical right wing attacks..

Cut earmarks by 1/3 and they want all earmarks cut
Cut the impact of lobbyists in the administration and they want all lobbyists cut
Create a more transparent administration and they demand complete transparency
Cut job losses from 700,000 a month to 11,000 a month and they want all losses stopped

What we have seen is just the first year. Lets see where we are after four years. Of course when the Republicans were in charge, these were all non issues

Typical left wing hack.
Dont read the article but coment on it.
The NUMBER of earmarks has dropped...the amount SPENT on earmarks has increased.
Simply measn that THIS congress has isolated certain PI groups that will get money...and they will get more than they normally would get...

Once again, the congress, the administration and the media taking advantage of the naevity of the American People....and look at you RW....YOU FELL FOR IT YOU MORON! You are actually saying look at the great stuff they did! LMAO....they are giving fewer groups money....BUT MORE MONEY TO THE ONES THAT GET!!!

Well done RW....

 

[Oldandtired]

so the republicans will not sponsor the bill?

That was back in '06. See the dateline on the story.
SO now the Dums have been in control of Congress for 4 years and what have they done? Cut the number of earmarks from an astronomical level to an outrageous level.
Transparancy? What's that? I thought Nancy said there would be more transparancy? I thought Obama said, repeatedly, that negotiations would be broadcase and not held in some back room somewhere.
I guess those are sooo last year because we have the least transparent, least accountable Congress in history. Their approval ratings make Pres Bush's look good.

right, so why did none of the repubs sponsor the bill?
The timeframe fits into my argument of hypocracisy in the right for ignoring it then and going ballistic on it now.

Sort of like many dems in congress voting for the Iraq war.....and then saying it was a republican mistake AFTER the fact....
You mean like that?

 

[uscitizen]

That was back in '06. See the dateline on the story.
SO now the Dums have been in control of Congress for 4 years and what have they done? Cut the number of earmarks from an astronomical level to an outrageous level.
Transparancy? What's that? I thought Nancy said there would be more transparancy? I thought Obama said, repeatedly, that negotiations would be broadcase and not held in some back room somewhere.
I guess those are sooo last year because we have the least transparent, least accountable Congress in history. Their approval ratings make Pres Bush's look good.

right, so why did none of the repubs sponsor the bill?
The timeframe fits into my argument of hypocracisy in the right for ignoring it then and going ballistic on it now.

Sort of like many dems in congress voting for the Iraq war.....and then saying it was a republican mistake AFTER the fact....
You mean like that?

Exactly like that.

 

[Oldandtired]

right, so why did none of the repubs sponsor the bill?
The timeframe fits into my argument of hypocracisy in the right for ignoring it then and going ballistic on it now.

Sort of like many dems in congress voting for the Iraq war.....and then saying it was a republican mistake AFTER the fact....
You mean like that?

Exactly like that.

So lets get rid of them all.
They are all hypocrites, liars, and an insult to our intelligence.
And what do they have US doing?
Arguing over who is the lesser of the hypocrite.

 

[uscitizen]

Sort of like many dems in congress voting for the Iraq war.....and then saying it was a republican mistake AFTER the fact....
You mean like that?

Exactly like that.

So lets get rid of them all.
They are all hypocrites, liars, and an insult to our intelligence.
And what do they have US doing?
Arguing over who is the lesser of the hypocrite.

We sheeple are good at doing what the tube tells us to do.
Ignore the men behind the curtain.