House continues ban on earmarks

[longknife]

On Friday, the House GOP voted to retain the ban on earmarks. Via Speaker Boehner’s office: House Republicans Renew Earmark Ban for 113th Congress Speaker.gov


2/3rds of the GOP caucus agree to the ban on Pork Barrel add-ons to House Resolutions. Will the current Senate do the same? And, the next question is – will the GOP-controlled Senate do the same next year?


Read the piece with links @ House continues ban on earmarks RedState

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Oughtta be a Constitutional Amendment

 

[FactFinder]

On Friday, the House GOP voted to retain the ban on earmarks. Via Speaker Boehner’s office: House Republicans Renew Earmark Ban for 113th Congress Speaker.gov


2/3rds of the GOP caucus agree to the ban on Pork Barrel add-ons to House Resolutions. Will the current Senate do the same? And, the next question is – will the GOP-controlled Senate do the same next year?


Read the piece with links @ House continues ban on earmarks RedState

The question is will the legislation that is before the floor be representative of the will of the people or the will of Wall Street. The GOP will succeed or fail based on that. If they continue to be the party that represents the minority rich over the middle class they will once again be booted out.

 

[FactFinder]

The middle class would prefer the lunacy of Pelosi over the even more grotesque greediness of Lloyd Blankfein who is perennially out of touch with the needs of the American people being solely focused on the needs of a minority of GS
investors. A very discreet, and small entity.

 

[LoneLaugher]

USMB nutters don't seem to know what earmarks are. They hate them...except when they don't hate them.

 

[jwoodie]

USMB nutters don't seem to know what earmarks are. They hate them...except when they don't hate them.

So are YOU for them or against them?

 

[longknife]

I am totally against them!

They are a corruption of the system as it allows politicians the ability to deny their participation in such garbage by disavowing them - while at the same time casting votes for them.

 

[ScienceRocks]

If it builds a new bridge or grants money for a cure for cancer. I am for it. I also have no problem with spending some money on new schools and institutions of science.

Of course, there's wasteful earmarks, but that's different as it doesn't benefit us.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I support anything that helps improve our nation.

 

[Idadunno]

I support anything that helps improve our nation.

Earmarks do not help the nation, only the recipient of the money--state of the legislator that pushed for federal funding of a state project, private company, etc. When committee members push for something, they want the funding for it to be set aside--earmarked, so that it is included in their committee's budget.

 

[Mr. H.]

How many budget deadlines has Obama missed? Four? Five?

 

[Papageorgio]

If it builds a new bridge or grants money for a cure for cancer. I am for it. I also have no problem with spending some money on new schools and institutions of science.

Of course, there's wasteful earmarks, but that's different as it doesn't benefit us.

The put them in a separate bill and put it up for a vote, don't bundle it. That is wasteful.

 

[longknife]

Again, the point of earmarks is hiding votes from the public eye by burying them deep in other legislation.

That's against what our republic is supposed to be about - educated participation.

 

[Idadunno]

Again, the point of earmarks is hiding votes from the public eye by burying them deep in other legislation.

That's against what our republic is supposed to be about - educated participation.

No one is hiding a vote. Each committee gets a certain amount of money for their budget. An earmark is money set aside for a project sponsored by a committee member for his or her state or a private organization. These things are not voted on by anyone. Just like the standing budget allowance for Social Security. The project may be building bridges or expanding a power plant to dump waste into a local creek (now there's something to stress over). No one votes on projects covered under the national budget. It is bad because the budgets get used for special favors that have more to do with reelections than economic welfare.

I think what you are talking about is when legislation is buried in other legislation. That should be illegal, but no one does anything to stop it. That is how we got the ACA. The House passed a bill for veterans to get tax breaks buying their first home. When it was sent to the Senate, the entire bill was deleted except the title and the ACA bill was inserted. The Senate then passed it. That is why the House was making such a fuss. Anyone can see this... Text of H.R. 3590 111th Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Placed on Calendar in the Senate version - GovTrack.us
That is the actual bill when it was put on the Senate calendar. Text of H.R. 3590 111th Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Amendment version - GovTrack.us this is the amended bill. Notice the initial title paragraph is the same.
Usually, subtle pieces are added--you cannot have this without that, or they use confusing language so the voters has no idea that they just passed, like in Alabama, a law to ban same sex marriage was camouflaged by a law not to acknowledge foreign laws or practices--they hid it under a terrorist type of thing so all the people saw was that.

 

[dadsgm]

On Friday, the House GOP voted to retain the ban on earmarks. Via Speaker Boehner’s office: House Republicans Renew Earmark Ban for 113th Congress Speaker.gov

They can renew/retain the ban all they want. The truth will be in that which is contained in any final reconciled bill which goes to the President for signature.

2/3rds of the GOP caucus agree to the ban on Pork Barrel add-ons to House Resolutions. Will the current Senate do the same? And, the next question is – will the GOP-controlled Senate do the same next year?


Read the piece with links @ House continues ban on earmarks RedState