Earmarks to be Banned to For-Profit companies?

[Vast LWC]

Sounds pretty good to me! One big step toward doing away with earmarks.

House Leaders Bar Earmarks to For-Profit Companies - NYTimes.com

WASHINGTON — House Democratic leaders said on Wednesday that they would no longer dole out budget “earmarks” to profit-making companies, wiping out one of the most lucrative and controversial means of awarding no-bid contracts to private firms.

The ban is the most aggressive step yet in a three-year effort in Congress to curb abuses in the awarding of earmarks, which direct that federal money be spent in a very specific way. The move follows criminal investigations, ethics inquiries and political embarassment linked to the use of earmarks.

If the ban had been in effect last year, it would have blocked some 1,000 earmarks, many of them for military contractors that received multi-million-dollar contracts, leaders of the House Appropriations Committee said in announcing the decision.

The move came less than two weeks after the House ethics committee cleared seven members of a defense appropriations subcommittee of allegations growing out of their awarding of earmarks to political contributors.

The earlier decision to clear the lawmakers drew sharp criticism from government watchdog groups, who said it would open the door to further abuse. The ban announced Wednesday appeared to be an effort by House Democrats to regain the high ground after a series of allegations against their own members. Republican leaders are considering how and whether to follow suit.

Since retaking control of Congress in 2007, the Democrats have taken a series of steps, including disclosing publicly which lawmakers requested each earmark, in an attempt to eliminate abuses. While outside critics of the earmark process have dismissed some of those steps as cosmetic, the ban on earmarks for profit-making companies announced on Wednesday drew quick praise.

 

[dilloduck]

So who will get the government handouts from here on out ?

 

[AvgGuyIA]

I don't trust ANY legislation put out by this Congress.

 

[antagon]

song and dance.

 

[Thinman]

Earmarks are attached to other bills and are most commonly allowed in order to buy a vote for that bill. All earmarks should be banned. If an earmark can't stand on it's own, as a bill, it doesn't deserve to be law. If it is specific to a state, like the infamous Bridge to nowhere, it must be handled by the state.

 

[Vast LWC]

song and dance.

So the Democrats come up with simple legislation that should appeal to everyone and still you meet such a proposal with derision.

Typical.

Guess FoxNews hasn't granted their approval yet...

 

[antagon]

earmarks are a reasonable alternative to pork-barrel spending. this is loading the canon for an assault on the republican party's campaign kick-back mechanism this fall. the republicans should self-impose a ceiling on pork-barrel initiatives and we'll really have a circus act going.

 

[antagon]

song and dance.

So the Democrats come up with simple legislation that should appeal to everyone and still you meet such a proposal with derision.

Typical.

Guess FoxNews hasn't granted their approval yet...

buddy...

1. its not a legislation (the song).
2. democrats dont really earmark anyhow (the dance).

if you werent clicking your heels to it you could see it for what it is.

fox news? wtf?

 

[goldcatt]

Read the story carefully, this is not legislation. This is an in-house rule put forward by House Democratic leadership and applies only to members of the House Democratic caucus. There is no bill.

 

[EriktheRed]

Can't imagine a majority congresscritters on either side of the aisle totally turning off the corporate spigot. Gotta be some kind of workaround already in place.

 

[oreo]

Sounds pretty good to me! One big step toward doing away with earmarks.

House Leaders Bar Earmarks to For-Profit Companies - NYTimes.com

WASHINGTON — House Democratic leaders said on Wednesday that they would no longer dole out budget “earmarks” to profit-making companies, wiping out one of the most lucrative and controversial means of awarding no-bid contracts to private firms.

The ban is the most aggressive step yet in a three-year effort in Congress to curb abuses in the awarding of earmarks, which direct that federal money be spent in a very specific way. The move follows criminal investigations, ethics inquiries and political embarassment linked to the use of earmarks.

If the ban had been in effect last year, it would have blocked some 1,000 earmarks, many of them for military contractors that received multi-million-dollar contracts, leaders of the House Appropriations Committee said in announcing the decision.

The move came less than two weeks after the House ethics committee cleared seven members of a defense appropriations subcommittee of allegations growing out of their awarding of earmarks to political contributors.

The earlier decision to clear the lawmakers drew sharp criticism from government watchdog groups, who said it would open the door to further abuse. The ban announced Wednesday appeared to be an effort by House Democrats to regain the high ground after a series of allegations against their own members. Republican leaders are considering how and whether to follow suit.

Since retaking control of Congress in 2007, the Democrats have taken a series of steps, including disclosing publicly which lawmakers requested each earmark, in an attempt to eliminate abuses. While outside critics of the earmark process have dismissed some of those steps as cosmetic, the ban on earmarks for profit-making companies announced on Wednesday drew quick praise.

I imagine this will go down like the Pay-Go plan they agreed to a couple of weeks ago--then spun around & recently signed off on borrowing another 110 BILLION to cover unemployment benefits for year 2010--WITHOUT cutting government spending elsewhere--

How does Harry Reid get his 600 million dollar train from Disneyland to Las Vegas constructed if he can't use a for-profit construction company?

Oh the talk, talk, talk that comes out of this liberal democrat congress. Of course after they have spent us into oblivion with earmarks--they have now decided to shut the barn doors.--LOL They're a total JOKE.

12.4 TRILLION deficit & rising.

 

[antagon]

the republican earmark legacy TOWERS over the democrats', oreo...

you almost made it. then the fail.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Sounds pretty good to me! One big step toward doing away with earmarks.

House Leaders Bar Earmarks to For-Profit Companies - NYTimes.com

WASHINGTON — House Democratic leaders said on Wednesday that they would no longer dole out budget “earmarks” to profit-making companies, wiping out one of the most lucrative and controversial means of awarding no-bid contracts to private firms.

The ban is the most aggressive step yet in a three-year effort in Congress to curb abuses in the awarding of earmarks, which direct that federal money be spent in a very specific way. The move follows criminal investigations, ethics inquiries and political embarassment linked to the use of earmarks.

If the ban had been in effect last year, it would have blocked some 1,000 earmarks, many of them for military contractors that received multi-million-dollar contracts, leaders of the House Appropriations Committee said in announcing the decision.

The move came less than two weeks after the House ethics committee cleared seven members of a defense appropriations subcommittee of allegations growing out of their awarding of earmarks to political contributors.

The earlier decision to clear the lawmakers drew sharp criticism from government watchdog groups, who said it would open the door to further abuse. The ban announced Wednesday appeared to be an effort by House Democrats to regain the high ground after a series of allegations against their own members. Republican leaders are considering how and whether to follow suit.

Since retaking control of Congress in 2007, the Democrats have taken a series of steps, including disclosing publicly which lawmakers requested each earmark, in an attempt to eliminate abuses. While outside critics of the earmark process have dismissed some of those steps as cosmetic, the ban on earmarks for profit-making companies announced on Wednesday drew quick praise.

Call me 'skeptical'

 

[goldcatt]

You should be skeptical. For several reasons. Workarounds. The fact that they could announce this rule with a snap of their fingers and can quietly rescind it just as easily. The fact that even the members it applies to are only barred from submitting them in their own names. The fact that there is no Senate version. I'm sure there are more, those are just the most obvious. But hey, it's good PR.