GOP gets it, Dems don't.

[The Rabbi]

The GOP scored a big one with the agreement by Mitch McConnell to end earmarks. Remember Pelosi and the Dums ran in 06 on doing this (actually just reining them in, meaning nothing but it sounded good). Initially McConnell opposed ending earmarks. But I guess the reality of what Americans want finally made the case with him. As he said:

An earmark moratorium shows that elected officials are serious about restoring trust between the American people and those who are elected to represent them

The Dums better start worrying.
Senate GOP Leader McConnell Has Change of Heart on Earmarks | The Rundown News Blog | PBS NewsHour | PBS

 

[blastoff]

The ball will be in the Dims court and they'll either have to go along with it or look positively stupid.

How ironic. They've gone from large majorities in the House and Senate to backing themselves into this corner and others. What a bunch of dopes.

 

[Wry Catcher]

McConnell? Was he for earmarks before he was against them? Oh, and Rabbi, please explain in detail what is and what is not an earmark.
For example, what is the difference between soft and hard earmarks, earmarks and pork barrell spending and if, for example, the Congress passes and the president signs a bill (such as No Child Left Behind) and the funding is year to year, many times less than necessary? Is the latter called a challenged earmark?
Oh, and what of no bid contracts, explain that for us as well as how funds will be distriburted when left without the force of law?

Earmarks outrage is nothing more than one more canard by the Republicans who still have no real clue how to govern.

 

[The Rabbi]

McConnell? Was he for earmarks before he was against them? Oh, and Rabbi, please explain in detail what is and what is not an earmark.
For example, what is the difference between soft and hard earmarks, earmarks and pork barrell spending and if, for example, the Congress passes and the president signs a bill (such as No Child Left Behind) and the funding is year to year, many times less than necessary? Is the latter called a challenged earmark?
Oh, and what of no bid contracts, explain that for us.

Why don't you explain why Pelosi and the Dums ran on ending earmarks and then utterly failed. In fact, everything they ran on in 06 they failed at. They failed because they never intended to change any of those things. It was all bullshit. Kind of like every post you make.
So now McConnell understands that he has to end earmarks and is on board with the idea. That's called "growth". Of course whatever he did, you would be carping about something. Because you...don't...get...it.

 

[Wry Catcher]

McConnell? Was he for earmarks before he was against them? Oh, and Rabbi, please explain in detail what is and what is not an earmark.
For example, what is the difference between soft and hard earmarks, earmarks and pork barrell spending and if, for example, the Congress passes and the president signs a bill (such as No Child Left Behind) and the funding is year to year, many times less than necessary? Is the latter called a challenged earmark?
Oh, and what of no bid contracts, explain that for us.

Why don't you explain why Pelosi and the Dums ran on ending earmarks and then utterly failed. In fact, everything they ran on in 06 they failed at. They failed because they never intended to change any of those things. It was all bullshit. Kind of like every post you make.
So now McConnell understands that he has to end earmarks and is on board with the idea. That's called "growth". Of course whatever he did, you would be carping about something. Because you...don't...get...it.

Of course I do, get it. Pelosi ran on healthcare and got it. She ran on Wall St. reform and got it. For those who believe (both of you) anything posted by Rabbi, consider:

Enacted
Main article: List of United States federal legislation#110th United States Congress
February 2, 2007 — House Page Board Revision Act of 2007, Pub.L. 110-2, 121 Stat. 4
May 25, 2007 — U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007, Pub.L. 110-28, 121 Stat. 112, including Title VIII: Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007, 121 Stat. 188
June 14, 2007 — Preserving United States Attorney Independence Act of 2007, Pub.L. 110-34, 121 Stat. 224
July 26, 2007 — Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007, Pub.L. 110-49, 121 Stat. 246
August 3, 2007 — Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, Pub.L. 110-53, 121 Stat. 266
August 5, 2007 — Protect America Act of 2007, Pub.L. 110-55, 121 Stat. 552
September 14, 2007 — Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, Pub.L. 110-81, 121 Stat. 735
November 8, 2007 — Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Pub.L. 110-114, 121 Stat. 1041 - Veto Overridden
December 19, 2007 — Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Pub.L. 110-140, 121 Stat. 1492
February 13, 2008 — Economic Stimulus Act of 2008, Pub.L. 110-185, 122 Stat. 613
May 21, 2008 — Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, Pub.L. 110-233, 122 Stat. 881
May 22, 2008 — Food and Energy Security Act of 2007 (2007 Farm Bill), Pub.L. 110-234, 122 Stat. 923 - Veto Overridden
June 30, 2008 — Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2008, Pub.L. 110-252, 122 Stat. 2323, including Title V: Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008 ("G.I. Bill 2008")
July 10, 2008 — FISA Amendments Act of 2008, Pub.L. 110-261, 122 Stat. 2436
July 29, 2008 — Tom Lantos Block Burmese JADE (Junta's Anti-Democratic Efforts) Act of 2008, Pub.L. 110-286, 122 Stat. 2632
July 30, 2008 — Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, Pub.L. 110-289, 122 Stat. 2654

House in Salinas, California under foreclosure, following the bursting of the U.S. real estate bubble.October 3, 2008 — Public Law 110-343 (Pub.L. 110-343), 122 Stat. 3765, including:
Div. A: Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, H.R. 1424;
Div. B: Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008; and
Div. C: Tax Extenders and Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2008
October 15, 2008 — Pub.L. 110-430: Setting the beginning of the first session of the 111th Congress and the date for counting Electoral College votes, 122 Stat. 4846
December 19, 2008 — Pub.L. 110-455: A Saxbe fix, reducing the compensation and other emoluments attached to the office of Secretary of State to that which was in effect on January 1, 2007: allowing Hillary Clinton to serve as Secretary of State despite the Emoluments Clause of the United States Constitution.
More information: Public Laws for the 110th Congress and Complete index of Public and Private Laws for 110th Congress at GPO

[edit] Proposed, but not enacted
in (alphabetical order)
America's Climate Security Act of 2007
Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act
Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007
Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act
District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007
Employee Free Choice Act
Employment Non-Discrimination Act
Executive Branch Reform Act
Family and Consumer Choice Act of 2007
Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act of 2007
Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007
Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007
Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007
Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act of 2007
Personal Use of Marijuana by Responsible Adults Act of 2008
Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2007
State Children's Health Insurance Program
[edit] Vetoed
Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007 (SCHIP, H.R. 976)
Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007 (SCHIP, H.R. 3963)
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (H.R. 3043)
Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007 (S. 5)
Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (S. 1943)
H.R. 1585: an earlier version of National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008
H.R. 1591: an earlier version of U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007

 

[blastoff]

McConnell? Was he for earmarks before he was against them? Oh, and Rabbi, please explain in detail what is and what is not an earmark.
For example, what is the difference between soft and hard earmarks, earmarks and pork barrell spending and if, for example, the Congress passes and the president signs a bill (such as No Child Left Behind) and the funding is year to year, many times less than necessary? Is the latter called a challenged earmark?
Oh, and what of no bid contracts, explain that for us.

Why don't you explain why Pelosi and the Dums ran on ending earmarks and then utterly failed. In fact, everything they ran on in 06 they failed at. They failed because they never intended to change any of those things. It was all bullshit. Kind of like every post you make.
So now McConnell understands that he has to end earmarks and is on board with the idea. That's called "growth". Of course whatever he did, you would be carping about something. Because you...don't...get...it.

From Pelosi's web site 3/27/07:

"This week the House will vote on H. Con. Res. 99, the Democratic budget resolution to restore fiscal responsibility and accountability...Pay-as-you-go budget rules contained in the resolution are critical to establishing fiscal integrity and will begin to reverse the record budget deficits..."

Yeah, PayGo. What ever happened to that idea from the great Nance? And how many trillions of deficit dollars in their budgets since?

Have a good laugh Speaker Nancy Pelosi | News Room | Press Releases

 

[Avatar4321]

We need to end earmarks but even if we do that, that wont make a dent in this budget.

 

[Truthmatters]

Its a fucking red herring.

I dont care if they do or dont get rid of it.


It was nothing but a bunch of right wing caviling anyway.

 

[Care4all]

I applaud the decision to eliminate earmarks, and allow these expenditures to go through the full vetting process.....

but isn't the republicans doing this now, after they increased earmarks under their rule almost 10folded, a bit late, no?

We turned to Taxpayers for Common Sense, an nonpartisan advocacy group that fights wasteful spending in Congress. The group opposes earmarks because they circumvent normal budget processes, crowd out funding for merit-based projects and invite corruption. We asked vice president Steve Ellis whether earmarks went up, not down, under the Republican-controlled Congresses.

"Totally true," Ellis said. "Certainly under the Republicans there was a big rise in earmarks." The high mark was fiscal 2005, the last fiscal year before Democrats won control, when Congress passed bills with approximately 16,000 earmarks, Ellis said.

We were able to find other sources that agreed with Ellis. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service documented increasing earmarks in different parts of appropriations bills in its report Earmarks in Appropriation Acts: FY1994, FY1996, FY1998, FY2000, FY2002, FY2004, FY2005. The conservative Heritage Foundation included a striking chart on earmarks in its Federal Spending by the Numbers 2010 report. It reported a slightly different number of earmarks, at approximately 14,000 earmarks in 2005. But that was the largest number of earmarks between 1991 and 2010, and a significant increase from 1994, when there were fewer than 2,000. PolitiFact | Obama says Republican Congresses used lots of earmarks

don't get me wrong, I am glad they are committing to this now....though note, this legislation IS NOT BINDING but a sense of the Senate, I believe?

 

[rightwinger]

We need to end earmarks but even if we do that, that wont make a dent in this budget.

Earmarks are less than a half percent of the budget and many of them actually are valid expenditures.

What has to end is the anonymous tacking on of unrelated expenditures to existing bills. If you want to fund projects in your district, put them in a comprehensive bill for each type of project and openly vote on them

 

[Truthmatters]

True , it was just a trumped up issue to give the cavalcade of caviling cons something to pretend was a big issue so they could ignore the real problems of this country..

The old bait and switch is so easy to pull on cavilers.

 

[The Rabbi]

McConnell? Was he for earmarks before he was against them? Oh, and Rabbi, please explain in detail what is and what is not an earmark.
For example, what is the difference between soft and hard earmarks, earmarks and pork barrell spending and if, for example, the Congress passes and the president signs a bill (such as No Child Left Behind) and the funding is year to year, many times less than necessary? Is the latter called a challenged earmark?
Oh, and what of no bid contracts, explain that for us.

Why don't you explain why Pelosi and the Dums ran on ending earmarks and then utterly failed. In fact, everything they ran on in 06 they failed at. They failed because they never intended to change any of those things. It was all bullshit. Kind of like every post you make.
So now McConnell understands that he has to end earmarks and is on board with the idea. That's called "growth". Of course whatever he did, you would be carping about something. Because you...don't...get...it.

Of course I do, get it. Pelosi ran on healthcare and got it. She ran on Wall St. reform and got it. For those who believe (both of you) anything posted by Rabbi, consider:

Enacted
Main article: List of United States federal legislation#110th United States Congress
February 2, 2007 — House Page Board Revision Act of 2007, Pub.L. 110-2, 121 Stat. 4
May 25, 2007 — U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007, Pub.L. 110-28, 121 Stat. 112, including Title VIII: Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007, 121 Stat. 188
June 14, 2007 — Preserving United States Attorney Independence Act of 2007, Pub.L. 110-34, 121 Stat. 224
July 26, 2007 — Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007, Pub.L. 110-49, 121 Stat. 246
August 3, 2007 — Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, Pub.L. 110-53, 121 Stat. 266
August 5, 2007 — Protect America Act of 2007, Pub.L. 110-55, 121 Stat. 552
September 14, 2007 — Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, Pub.L. 110-81, 121 Stat. 735
November 8, 2007 — Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Pub.L. 110-114, 121 Stat. 1041 - Veto Overridden
December 19, 2007 — Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Pub.L. 110-140, 121 Stat. 1492
February 13, 2008 — Economic Stimulus Act of 2008, Pub.L. 110-185, 122 Stat. 613
May 21, 2008 — Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, Pub.L. 110-233, 122 Stat. 881
May 22, 2008 — Food and Energy Security Act of 2007 (2007 Farm Bill), Pub.L. 110-234, 122 Stat. 923 - Veto Overridden
June 30, 2008 — Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2008, Pub.L. 110-252, 122 Stat. 2323, including Title V: Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008 ("G.I. Bill 2008")
July 10, 2008 — FISA Amendments Act of 2008, Pub.L. 110-261, 122 Stat. 2436
July 29, 2008 — Tom Lantos Block Burmese JADE (Junta's Anti-Democratic Efforts) Act of 2008, Pub.L. 110-286, 122 Stat. 2632
July 30, 2008 — Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, Pub.L. 110-289, 122 Stat. 2654

House in Salinas, California under foreclosure, following the bursting of the U.S. real estate bubble.October 3, 2008 — Public Law 110-343 (Pub.L. 110-343), 122 Stat. 3765, including:
Div. A: Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, H.R. 1424;
Div. B: Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008; and
Div. C: Tax Extenders and Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2008
October 15, 2008 — Pub.L. 110-430: Setting the beginning of the first session of the 111th Congress and the date for counting Electoral College votes, 122 Stat. 4846
December 19, 2008 — Pub.L. 110-455: A Saxbe fix, reducing the compensation and other emoluments attached to the office of Secretary of State to that which was in effect on January 1, 2007: allowing Hillary Clinton to serve as Secretary of State despite the Emoluments Clause of the United States Constitution.
More information: Public Laws for the 110th Congress and Complete index of Public and Private Laws for 110th Congress at GPO

[edit] Proposed, but not enacted
in (alphabetical order)
America's Climate Security Act of 2007
Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act
Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007
Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act
District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007
Employee Free Choice Act
Employment Non-Discrimination Act
Executive Branch Reform Act
Family and Consumer Choice Act of 2007
Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act of 2007
Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007
Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007
Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007
Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act of 2007
Personal Use of Marijuana by Responsible Adults Act of 2008
Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2007
State Children's Health Insurance Program
[edit] Vetoed
Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007 (SCHIP, H.R. 976)
Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007 (SCHIP, H.R. 3963)
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (H.R. 3043)
Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007 (S. 5)
Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (S. 1943)
H.R. 1585: an earlier version of National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008
H.R. 1591: an earlier version of U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007

Soyou throw a bunch of irrelevant bullshit and hope we don't notice??
Here's what nancy said:

WASHINGTON — Democrats aim to open the next Congress in January with a new rule that identifies lawmakers who use legislative "earmarks" to help special interests — a change Republicans promised but didn't implement.

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said her first agenda item after being elected House speaker will be a vote to require sponsors of earmarks to be identified. Currently, lawmakers can remain anonymous in sponsoring an earmark, which is language in a bill that directs funds or tax benefits to a business, project or institution.

"There has to be transparency," the California congresswoman told USA TODAY last week. "I'd just as soon do away with all (earmarks), but that probably isn't realistic."

So not only did she fail in her limited efforts, she admitted Dems could not do away with earmarks. And now here's the GOP on the cusp of doing what Nancy not only could not do, but she said it was impossible to do.
I guess if you want something done, you need Republicans to do it.

 

[Avatar4321]

True , it was just a trumped up issue to give the cavalcade of caviling cons something to pretend was a big issue so they could ignore the real problems of this country..

The old bait and switch is so easy to pull on cavilers.

You don't think earmarks are a serious problem?

All spending is a problem. If they do anything to limit it, id say they are fixing the problem to some degree. Hopefully it's just a first step.

 

[uscitizen]

Is voting for or pushing buying military hardware from a supplier located in your state an earmark?

 

[Avatar4321]

Is voting for or pushing buying military hardware from a supplier located in your state an earmark?

It can be

 

[Sallow]

One of the first things Republicans are talking about getting rid of, is the Independent Ethics Board. Go figure.

They did the same with Paygo..and blocked it when President Obama tried to get it back into the way business is done in congress.

 

[The Rabbi]

One of the first things Republicans are talking about getting rid of, is the Independent Ethics Board. Go figure.

They did the same with Paygo..and blocked it when President Obama tried to get it back into the way business is done in congress.

Wait, I thought you always said Bush did away with Paygo? Changing your story now?
Speaking of changing, why are you changing the subject to the Ethics Board when this thread is about earmarks?
I guess if you can't argue you change the subject.

 

[Sallow]

One of the first things Republicans are talking about getting rid of, is the Independent Ethics Board. Go figure.

They did the same with Paygo..and blocked it when President Obama tried to get it back into the way business is done in congress.

Wait, I thought you always said Bush did away with Paygo? Changing your story now?

Stay with me now. President Bush belonged to the ____________ party.

Speaking of changing, why are you changing the subject to the Ethics Board when this thread is about earmarks?

Because the Republicans like to talk a good game..but in reality it's theater.

I guess if you can't argue you change the subject.

Cognition is tough..ain't it?

 

[kiwiman127]

What will probably happen regarding "earmarks", is that they will be redefined.
Below is an article that may be the tip of the icebeg of redefining earmarks deflection.

Bachmann: Transportation projects shouldn't be earmarks[/B]

When is an earmark not an earmark?

Rep. Michele Bachmann supports a ban on earmarks in Congress, but she thinks that some transportation projects should redefined so they aren’t considered earmarks.

Bachmann told the Star Tribune she supports a “redefinition” of what an earmark is, because, she said: “Advocating for transportation projects for ones district in my mind does not equate to an earmark.”

“I don’t believe that building roads and bridges and interchanges should be considered an earmark,” Bachmann said. “There’s a big difference between funding a tea pot museum and a bridge over a vital waterway."For more go to this link: Bachmann: Transportation projects shouldn't be earmarks | StarTribune.com

Now this approach wouldn't surprise me or really anyone else who has a good handle on exactly what bull-shitters Washington politicians really are, no matter which party.

 

[Avatar4321]

One of the first things Republicans are talking about getting rid of, is the Independent Ethics Board. Go figure.

They did the same with Paygo..and blocked it when President Obama tried to get it back into the way business is done in congress.

Paygo was phoney legislation that did nothing to fix the problem but gave the politicians a false claim that they were doing something.