More scrutiny of pork-barrel projects

[sealybobo]

"I am signing an imperfect omnibus bill because it is necessary for the ongoing functions of government," said Obama.

"But I also view this as a departure point for more far-reaching change . . . Let there be no doubt: this piece of legislation must mark an end to the old way of doing business."

The $410-billion bill will allow the U.S. government to continue operating through the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30 and includes "needed investments in line with our urgent national priorities," Obama said.

Less than two per cent of the bill's funding goes to pet projects added by members of Congress to benefit their legislative districts.

"Done right, earmarks give legislators the opportunity to direct federal money to worthy projects that benefit people in their district, and that's why I have opposed their outright elimination," Obama said.

Going forward, Obama said legislators must prove earmark projects "have a legitimate and worthy public purpose." If they don't, the White House will "seek to eliminate it" from future spending bills.

Among Obama's proposals to rein in earmark spending is a requirement for individual lawmakers who promoted pet projects to list them on their congressional websites in advance. The move is aimed at preventing Congress from sneaking legislative pork into spending bills at the last minute.

Any earmark destined for a private company should also be subject to competitive bidding, said Obama.

"The awarding of earmarks to private companies is the single most corrupting element of this practice, as witnessed by some of the indictments and convictions we have seen," he said.
But while Republicans blamed Democrats for adding 9,000 pet projects, nine of the Top 20 "earmarking" senators were Republicans.

"I find it ironic that some of those who railed the loudest against this bill because of earmarks actually inserted earmarks of their own," Obama said.

More scrutiny of pork-barrel projects: Obama

 

[sealybobo]

Rep. Ron Paul Defends His Earmarks in Spending Bill

FOXNews.com - Rep. Ron Paul Defends His Earmarks in Spending Bill - Neil Cavuto | Your World

 

[sealybobo]

Six Triad projects will receive more than $4.5 million in federal money following passage of budget earmark requests authored by Rep. Howard Coble, a Republican who represents the state’s Sixth District.

The earmarks were part of the $410 billion omnibus spending bill President Obama signed Wednesday.

“I would be in favor of continued earmark reform, but as long as earmarks remain a part of the legislative funding process, I would be doing a disservice to the citizens of the Sixth District by not seeking funding for worthwhile projects...” Coble said. “I will take a backseat to no one when it comes to being a fiscal conservative, and I think my voting record will back that up. The name ‘earmarks’ has gotten a bad reputation because of the nefarious and unethical actions of a handful of elected officials and lobbyists — some of whom are sitting in prisons today.”

The projects to receive federal funding include:

Spending bill includes Triad earmarks - The Business Journal of the Greater Triad Area:

 

[sealybobo]

I knew you fucking Republicans wouldn't want to discuss this:

Rep. Howard Coble, a Republican who represents the state’s Sixth District.

The earmarks were part of the $410 billion omnibus spending bill President Obama signed Wednesday.

“I would be in favor of continued earmark reform, but as long as earmarks remain a part of the legislative funding process, I would be doing a disservice to the citizens of the Sixth District by not seeking funding for worthwhile projects...” Coble said. “I will take a backseat to no one when it comes to being a fiscal conservative, and I think my voting record will back that up. The name ‘earmarks’ has gotten a bad reputation because of the nefarious and unethical actions of a handful of elected officials and lobbyists — some of whom are sitting in prisons today.”

 

[sealybobo]

Here are science/genetics projects that Sen. McCain consider earmarks or pork-barrel:

“$819, 000 for catfish genetics research in Alabama”
“$1,427,250 for genetic improvements of switchgrass - I thought switchgrass genes were pretty good already, guess I was wrong.”
“$1 million for mormon cricket control in Utah - is that the species of cricket or a game played by the brits?”
“$650,000 for beaver management in North Carolina and Mississippi”
“$250,000 to enhance research on Ice Seal populations”
“$209,000 to improve blueberry production and efficiency in GA”

Alabama, Utah, N. Carolina, Mississippi? Aren't these all red states?

 

[editec]

This obsession with "earmarks" is goofy.

Bad spending is bad spending whether its done via earmarking process, or its done as part of an overall spending package.

 

[GHook93]

Rep. Ron Paul Defends His Earmarks in Spending Bill

FOXNews.com - Rep. Ron Paul Defends His Earmarks in Spending Bill - Neil Cavuto | Your World

I gave Ron Paul a lot of crap when he had the highest amount of Pork of any of the Republican Congressional candidates on the R side. However, see below he never voted for any of them! But the man makes a ton of sense when he says everything should be earmarked, every last penny, so the spenders, pork or non-pork spending, can be accounted for. He is 100% right on spending, pork or regular, should be transparent and accounted for!

But I think you're missing the whole point. I have never voted for an earmark. I voted against all appropriation bills. So, this whole thing about earmarks is totally misunderstood.

Earmarks is the responsibility of the Congress. We should earmark even more. We should earmark every penny. So, that's the principle that we have to follow and the — and the responsibility of the Congress. The whole idea that you vote against an earmark, you don't save a penny. That just goes to the administration and they get to allocate the funds.

 

[editec]

It does NOT make sense to earmark everything.

Most money goes to well established fully understood extant projects, or to the states and so earmarking that money, which is understood well enough because it is based on the BUDGETS of those extant programs would be a waste of time.

Earmarking should be reserved for those specific projects which are NOT part of the normal business of the budgetary process.

For example, suppose that we suddenly dicovered that the Golden Gate Bridge needed to be replaced.

Now since the DOT of CALIFORNIA didn't have THAT in their request for funding, and since that bridge was needed BEFORE the next budgetary process, it would make trememndous sense to put an earmark to rebuild that bridge in the next avaialable spending bill.

It's an earmark, but it would NOT be pork, right?

Do we all understnad the difference yet?

I hope so, because this flap about earmarks is a waste of all our time, UNLESS we are partisan hacks who don't fucking understand jackshit about anything.

 

[bk1983]

Does anyone find it amusing that a number of the democrats and republicans who opposed the spending bill on the grounds of earmarks, actually had their own earmarks included? So they got the money for their pet projects and got to look like a wasteful spending fighter at the same time.. But the simple minded will never pay attention to the details, just keep looking at the yea and nay..

 

[Meister]

I knew you fucking Republicans wouldn't want to discuss this:

Rep. Howard Coble, a Republican who represents the state’s Sixth District.

The earmarks were part of the $410 billion omnibus spending bill President Obama signed Wednesday.

“I would be in favor of continued earmark reform, but as long as earmarks remain a part of the legislative funding process, I would be doing a disservice to the citizens of the Sixth District by not seeking funding for worthwhile projects...” Coble said. “I will take a backseat to no one when it comes to being a fiscal conservative, and I think my voting record will back that up. The name ‘earmarks’ has gotten a bad reputation because of the nefarious and unethical actions of a handful of elected officials and lobbyists — some of whom are sitting in prisons today.”

I think most of the republicans are waiting to hear what the new definition of "earmark" is.

 

[Burp]

Here are science/genetics projects that Sen. McCain consider earmarks or pork-barrel:

“$819, 000 for catfish genetics research in Alabama”
“$1,427,250 for genetic improvements of switchgrass - I thought switchgrass genes were pretty good already, guess I was wrong.”
“$1 million for mormon cricket control in Utah - is that the species of cricket or a game played by the brits?”
“$650,000 for beaver management in North Carolina and Mississippi”
“$250,000 to enhance research on Ice Seal populations”
“$209,000 to improve blueberry production and efficiency in GA”

Alabama, Utah, N. Carolina, Mississippi? Aren't these all red states?

I have friends who have had experience with some of the beavers in Mississippi and trust me on this, you don't want to be anywhere near them. They say they are dirty, smelly...just nasty.

You'd have to pay someone an awful lot of money to get near them.

 

[alan1]

Here are science/genetics projects that Sen. McCain consider earmarks or pork-barrel:

“$819, 000 for catfish genetics research in Alabama”
“$1,427,250 for genetic improvements of switchgrass - I thought switchgrass genes were pretty good already, guess I was wrong.”
“$1 million for mormon cricket control in Utah - is that the species of cricket or a game played by the brits?”
“$650,000 for beaver management in North Carolina and Mississippi”
“$250,000 to enhance research on Ice Seal populations”
“$209,000 to improve blueberry production and efficiency in GA”

Alabama, Utah, N. Carolina, Mississippi? Aren't these all red states?

I have friends who have had experience with some of the beavers in Mississippi and trust me on this, you don't want to be anywhere near them. They say they are dirty, smelly...just nasty.

You'd have to pay someone an awful lot of money to get near them.

The beavers in NC are actually sought after heavily.

Oh wait, different beavers.

 

[Burp]

We're probably talking about the same beavers.

 

[Xenophon]

Does anyone find it amusing that a number of the democrats and republicans who opposed the spending bill on the grounds of earmarks, actually had their own earmarks included? So they got the money for their pet projects and got to look like a wasteful spending fighter at the same time.. But the simple minded will never pay attention to the details, just keep looking at the yea and nay..

I don't know if amusing is the word I'd use, but it does prove that the GoP and the dems both equally suck.

 

[editec]

I knew you fucking Republicans wouldn't want to discuss this:

Rep. Howard Coble, a Republican who represents the state’s Sixth District.

The earmarks were part of the $410 billion omnibus spending bill President Obama signed Wednesday.

“I would be in favor of continued earmark reform, but as long as earmarks remain a part of the legislative funding process, I would be doing a disservice to the citizens of the Sixth District by not seeking funding for worthwhile projects...” Coble said. “I will take a backseat to no one when it comes to being a fiscal conservative, and I think my voting record will back that up. The name ‘earmarks’ has gotten a bad reputation because of the nefarious and unethical actions of a handful of elected officials and lobbyists — some of whom are sitting in prisons today.”

I think most of the republicans are waiting to hear what the new definition of "earmark" is.

Rush will be there for them, I am sure.

He's explain to them how an earmark that a Republican who insisted that it go into the bill, but who is voting no for the package isn't an an earmark because, even though the fellow knew perfectly well the bill would pass, and he'd get his earmark, his no vote gave him the higher moral ground.

And the dittoheads will accept that convoluted dislogic because ...well, because they're dittoheads, naturally.

 

[Meister]

I knew you fucking Republicans wouldn't want to discuss this:

Rep. Howard Coble, a Republican who represents the state’s Sixth District.

The earmarks were part of the $410 billion omnibus spending bill President Obama signed Wednesday.

“I would be in favor of continued earmark reform, but as long as earmarks remain a part of the legislative funding process, I would be doing a disservice to the citizens of the Sixth District by not seeking funding for worthwhile projects...” Coble said. “I will take a backseat to no one when it comes to being a fiscal conservative, and I think my voting record will back that up. The name ‘earmarks’ has gotten a bad reputation because of the nefarious and unethical actions of a handful of elected officials and lobbyists — some of whom are sitting in prisons today.”

I think most of the republicans are waiting to hear what the new definition of "earmark" is.

Rush will be there for them, I am sure.

He's explain to them how an earmark that a Republican who insisted that it go into the bill, but who is voting no for the package isn't an an earmark because, even though the fellow knew perfectly well the bill would pass, and he'd get his earmark, his no vote gave him the higher moral ground.

And the dittoheads will accept that convoluted dislogic because ...well, because they're dittoheads, naturally.

How did Rush get into this? We're talking about Obama, and the "hope and change" no more earmarks. But if you want to keep going on about Rush..there are plenty of threads for you to vent in dealing with Rush. The liberal whacks just can't get over Rush, and focus on what really matters. Of Coarse if you want to talk about Rush...Let's also talk about George Soros...you know who he is huh? Yeah, that's the guy who finances the dems. Now you liberal nuts are beholding to him. Yeah...let's talk about Rush, and George. Ed, I did expect a little more from you than your post here. Normally you don't get caught up in the media hype.

 

[bk1983]

I knew you fucking Republicans wouldn't want to discuss this:

Rep. Howard Coble, a Republican who represents the state’s Sixth District.

The earmarks were part of the $410 billion omnibus spending bill President Obama signed Wednesday.

“I would be in favor of continued earmark reform, but as long as earmarks remain a part of the legislative funding process, I would be doing a disservice to the citizens of the Sixth District by not seeking funding for worthwhile projects...” Coble said. “I will take a backseat to no one when it comes to being a fiscal conservative, and I think my voting record will back that up. The name ‘earmarks’ has gotten a bad reputation because of the nefarious and unethical actions of a handful of elected officials and lobbyists — some of whom are sitting in prisons today.”

I think most of the republicans are waiting to hear what the new definition of "earmark" is.

Rush will be there for them, I am sure.

He's explain to them how an earmark that a Republican who insisted that it go into the bill, but who is voting no for the package isn't an an earmark because, even though the fellow knew perfectly well the bill would pass, and he'd get his earmark, his no vote gave him the higher moral ground.

And the dittoheads will accept that convoluted dislogic because ...well, because they're dittoheads, naturally.

Like I said the majority will not pay attention to the details, they applaud those who voted nay, not realizing many of them had written in there very own earmarks in the bill, all while voting no supposedly on the grounds of fighting earmarks.

 

[Meister]

I think most of the republicans are waiting to hear what the new definition of "earmark" is.

Rush will be there for them, I am sure.

He's explain to them how an earmark that a Republican who insisted that it go into the bill, but who is voting no for the package isn't an an earmark because, even though the fellow knew perfectly well the bill would pass, and he'd get his earmark, his no vote gave him the higher moral ground.

And the dittoheads will accept that convoluted dislogic because ...well, because they're dittoheads, naturally.

Like I said the majority will not pay attention to the details, they applaud those who voted nay, not realizing many of them had written in there very own earmarks in the bill, all while voting no supposedly on the grounds of fighting earmarks.

I'm all for getting ride of all the earmarks...on both sides, and it pissed me off that both sides had them. But, having said that, it was the scourge Bush who told congress he was going to veto the bill because of the earmarks in this economy.

 

[Maple]

I think that beaver management was addressed in the stimulus bill also. This is what happens when no one has a chance to read a bill before they sign it. Obama's pledge, transparency- lie. The beaver thing now is being double funded. End to ear marks another lie.

 

[Maple]

For your information, the democratic congress withheld the omnibus bill because Bush threatened to veto it because of the 9,000 earmarks. Pelosi knew that she would get her puppet, Obama in there and he would sign it. Yes, there were 40% republican earmarks and 60% democrat earmarks. Obama had a chance to lead and veto this bill, but he didn't. He will turn out to be a one termer, just like Jimmy Carter, he gives a great speech, means none of it, and does not have the political will to stand up to the left in his own party. He will be a lame duck in 2 years and a cooked goose in 4.