DeMint: We'll Ban Earmarks Right Away

[Thinkformyself]

That is all great and wonderful.

Not that being said, anyone have any idea on how one would ban appropriations? Who would get to decide what money goes where?

No, I am not buying DeMint's rhetoric. He may not ask for anything. That does not mean the people he he represents are not getting something.

Here's an idea how about create a budget, approve it and once approved, live within the budget. I'm sure if a lot of these depts. in Govt. had to live on the monies given to them in a budget and not on having to repeatedly ask congress for supplementals, or porking up bills with spending done outside the budget then we may see some movement in the right direction.

You raise a valid point. I have no issue at all with gutting spending, no problem at all. Cut it down to nothing. Start with the biggest spending and go down the list.

But let's look at DeMint's statements for what they are. Nothing more than rhetoric.

1% of spending is on pork.

FactCheck.org: What percentage of the national spending is pork?

The problem I have with DeMint's promise is there is no way to actually do what he claims. None.

 

[Bern80]

Instead of smirking and eating popcorn, shouldn't you be fixing the OP - it breaches copyright.

Zing!

I thank you folks very much for avoiding the actual topic of the thread and instead focusing on a forum rule violation. Rest assured I have taken it to heart.

Actually, I did PM a mod for clarification of said rule as I am a mere babe in the woods here. So until I have a bit more info on the rule I have edited the OP so as to not include the entire article.

Again, a hearty thanks for that.

An acquaintance of mine brought this up too and I don't get it. She was all bent out of shape that Jim Oberstar was ousted. She was all concerned that with him gone as the tranportation board chair or whatever that earmark money wouldn't make it to MN for road repair. I mean really people? Road work isn't going to get done if we don't have earmarks? Can we get real please. I guess we have to start the debate all over because I thought it was fairly unanimous that we all wanted earmarks gone. Apparently not.

 

[California Girl]

That is all great and wonderful.

Not that being said, anyone have any idea on how one would ban appropriations? Who would get to decide what money goes where?

No, I am not buying DeMint's rhetoric. He may not ask for anything. That does not mean the people he he represents are not getting something.

Here's an idea how about create a budget, approve it and once approved, live within the budget. I'm sure if a lot of these depts. in Govt. had to live on the monies given to them in a budget and not on having to repeatedly ask congress for supplementals, or porking up bills with spending done outside the budget then we may see some movement in the right direction.

What interests me about this whole thing is the cost of these 'earmarks'. That's how the Administration 'buys' the votes it needs to pass it's crap. I'm not necessarily talking about the actual dollar amount of earmarks.... but, what bills those people vote for that they would not necessarily have voted for.

ObamaCare is the major current example of this process. Exactly how many of our Democratic Senators sold their votes? What did they get in return? Because those people are responsible for this monstrosity. A simply vast amount of money for a system that is not the one we should have.

This is another reason why I simply loathe politicians - all of them. Well, the vast majority of them anyway.

 

[Jeremy]

Obama was against earmarks too. Should be a slam dunk, unless the Dems want to look like crap right after an election.

And he still says he is too. Too bad he's lying out of his ass.

 

[Jeremy]

Obama was against earmarks too. Should be a slam dunk, unless the Dems want to look like crap right after an election.

And he still says he is too. Too bad he's lying out of his ass.

I take that back. With the R's running congress now. He may put some more teeth into that promise. Not because he thinks it's the right thing to do, but because he will use that to hold the R's feet to the fire.

 

[Navy1960]

That is all great and wonderful.

Not that being said, anyone have any idea on how one would ban appropriations? Who would get to decide what money goes where?

No, I am not buying DeMint's rhetoric. He may not ask for anything. That does not mean the people he he represents are not getting something.

Here's an idea how about create a budget, approve it and once approved, live within the budget. I'm sure if a lot of these depts. in Govt. had to live on the monies given to them in a budget and not on having to repeatedly ask congress for supplementals, or porking up bills with spending done outside the budget then we may see some movement in the right direction.

What interests me about this whole thing is the cost of these 'earmarks'. That's how the Administration 'buys' the votes it needs to pass it's crap. I'm not necessarily talking about the actual dollar amount of earmarks.... but, what bills those people vote for that they would not necessarily have voted for.

ObamaCare is the major current example of this process. Exactly how many of our Democratic Senators sold their votes? What did they get in return? Because those people are responsible for this monstrosity. A simply vast amount of money for a system that is not the one we should have.

This is another reason why I simply loathe politicians - all of them. Well, the vast majority of them anyway.

Frankly, I've long been of the opinion that the Govt. needs to revise the HOW it spends money more so that it does simply cutting spending and not reforming that aspect of it will lead to the evntual creeping back up to where it began. In my humble opinion when spending procedures are in place that are smooth, well managed, and have the proper oversight, and budget then the end result will be natural reduction in the so called pork , be it in the overall Federal Budget or those supplementals. Like the conversation we are having about DoD in the other thread, should DoD be made to single source, fix, cost, and time limit contracts as well as treat the programs as needed assets to the US Military rather than jobs programs or vote getters then perhaps if that same principle is applied throughout the Federal system then maybe progress might be made.

 

[jillian]

Really? Really Jim? You are going to ban earmarks? That is absolutely amazing. An amazing feat that is following an amazing claim. What are you going to do with federal dollars tax dollars then? Spend it all on things in Washington? Not send any back to congressional districts? How does one actually ban earmarks?

An absolutely amazing claim by the senator. I would certainly welcome anyone telling me how he plans on doing this, and under what authority he thinks he can do this. By the way, it is the job of elected officials to bring tax dollars back to their districts as tax dollars that I pay are not wholly intended to do nothing at all, in my wise and entirely correct opinion.

More absolute pie in the sky nonsensical claims from the senator that have zero hope of ever becoming reality.

DeMint: We'll Ban Earmarks Right Away - The Early Show - CBS News

Edited, copyright infringements will not be tolerated

PixieStix

they'll go to las vegas.

and cool re the copyright thing... i'm sure you'll say it as succinctly to the sarah palin spammers. right?

of course right.

 

[Jeremy]

Really? Really Jim? You are going to ban earmarks? That is absolutely amazing. An amazing feat that is following an amazing claim. What are you going to do with federal dollars tax dollars then? Spend it all on things in Washington? Not send any back to congressional districts? How does one actually ban earmarks?

An absolutely amazing claim by the senator. I would certainly welcome anyone telling me how he plans on doing this, and under what authority he thinks he can do this. By the way, it is the job of elected officials to bring tax dollars back to their districts as tax dollars that I pay are not wholly intended to do nothing at all, in my wise and entirely correct opinion.

More absolute pie in the sky nonsensical claims from the senator that have zero hope of ever becoming reality.

DeMint: We'll Ban Earmarks Right Away - The Early Show - CBS News

Edited, copyright infringements will not be tolerated

PixieStix

You do know the difference between regular funding appropriations and earmarks I hope?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Would you send the guy to Washington who will not bring some tax dollars home? Of course not.

Speak for yourself. That's exactly the kind of guy I want in Washington. If the feds weren't taking our money in the first place we wouldn't need to worry about Congressmen bringing it back to the district. Earmarks help politicians bribe constituents into reelecting them and they open the door to corruption.

Jim DeMint has not gotten any earmarks for several years and he got reelected with almost 70% of the vote on Tuesday.

 

[Thinkformyself]

Would you send the guy to Washington who will not bring some tax dollars home? Of course not.

Speak for yourself.

I would never claim to speak for anyone other than myself.

That's exactly the kind of guy I want in Washington. If the feds weren't taking our money in the first place we wouldn't need to worry about Congressmen bringing it back to the district. Earmarks help politicians bribe constituents into reelecting them and they open the door to corruption.

Jim DeMint has not gotten any earmarks for several years and he got reelected with almost 70% of the vote on Tuesday.

Indeed, he did, and his main opponent was an abject idiot. An idiot of epic proportions. Yes, the Democratic Party puts idiots forth at times, as does the Republican Party.

DeMint is a senator. As a senator, he represents the whole of his state, not a district. Also, as a senator, there is another senator in his state. The other brings home plenty of pork so DeMint has the convenience of watching those whom he represents get said pork and being against pork. It is a bit of a win/win for him.

Now be against pork all you like. If you do not want your representatives to bring dollars you pay into the federal government back to your state that is your prerogative. Personally, I find DeMint's claims to be nothing more than rhetoric.

 

[Jeremy]

Would you send the guy to Washington who will not bring some tax dollars home? Of course not.

Speak for yourself. That's exactly the kind of guy I want in Washington. If the feds weren't taking our money in the first place we wouldn't need to worry about Congressmen bringing it back to the district. Earmarks help politicians bribe constituents into reelecting them and they open the door to corruption.

Jim DeMint has not gotten any earmarks for several years and he got reelected with almost 70% of the vote on Tuesday.

The districts and the individuals would be much better at appropriating their own funds than one biased congressman. The more money that stays in the district without being laundered through the federal system the better.

 

[judyd]

Frankly, I've long been of the opinion that the Govt. needs to revise the HOW it spends money more so that it does simply cutting spending and not reforming that aspect of it will lead to the evntual creeping back up to where it began. In my humble opinion when spending procedures are in place that are smooth, well managed, and have the proper oversight, and budget then the end result will be natural reduction in the so called pork , be it in the overall Federal Budget or those supplementals. Like the conversation we are having about DoD in the other thread, should DoD be made to single source, fix, cost, and time limit contracts as well as treat the programs as needed assets to the US Military rather than jobs programs or vote getters then perhaps if that same principle is applied throughout the Federal system then maybe progress might be made.

One of the biggest wastes is end-of-year money. And the military is one of the worst offenders in this regard. If there is money left over in a department's budget at the end of the year, rather than carry it over, they go on a spending spree to make sure it is all used up, because they don't want to have their budget cut for the following year. They would also rather keep a few employees sitting around with nothing to do, than cut the positions out of the budget. Over the years I have worked both in private industry and I worked in the Pentagon and other government offices, so I have seen this from both angles.

Of course the vendors aren't going to say anything because they like to be the recipients of the "end of year" money. So this wasteful spending has gone on for decades and no one will take any steps to stop it.

 

[kwc57]

sure they should. So shouldn't dmeint pledge to balance the budget if that is the case?

But let's face reality, shall we? This is nothing more than a little ploy by demint, a rhetorical jingle that gets the base worked up and makes folks think he is actually doing something, in my opinion.

Obviously it has no chance of becoming reality. earmarks are part of life. Would you send the guy to washington who will not bring some tax dollars home? Of course not. demint wins no matter what. When he fails he can always claim that it was the fault of business as usual in washington and his supporters send him back, and his constituents still get plenty of money brought back because the other senator from his state still requests earmarks.

.: United states senator lindsey graham, south carolina :: Issue statements :.

actually, i voted to reelect just such a guy this past tuesday.

the senator fighting pork - time


a soft-spoken, polite man who has long worked as obstetrician, tom coburn has angered senators from the right and the left in his decade-long battle to cut what he considers pork-barrel spending from the federal budget. Coburn has diagnosed such spending, known as earmarks, as "the gateway drug to spending addiction" and he's determined to cure congress of this malady. As the senate has worked to pass a key appropriations bill over the last two weeks, coburn has attached 19 amendments to the bill, all targeting spending provisions he thinks are pork. Most famous for his attacks last year on the so-called "bridge to nowhere" — which would have spent more than $200 million to connect two virtually uninhabited areas in alaska — coburn now has his eye on a bunch of projects inserted in this bill by two of the most experienced and powerful men on capitol hill, mississippi republican senators thad cochran and trent lott......

......the mild-mannered cochran seemed a bit frustrated with coburn's tactics last week, and that's not unusual. Coburn's habit of going down to the senate floor and ridiculing projects his colleagues want funding for is "annoying" to some of them, says mel martinez, a republican from florida. Alaska's ted stevens threatened to resign from the senate if it supported coburn's drive to cut the "bridge to nowhere" from last year's budget, and coburn won only 15 votes for the provision. But while his victories are rare and the ire from his colleagues high, coburn says he doesn't mind. "i don't care about the next election. I don't care about getting reelected," he says. "we have to change the process."

dana milbank - coburn dines alone as the senate buffet piles on the pork - washingtonpost.com

george f. Will - the senate's dr. No - washingtonpost.com

senate committee passes landmark earmark transparency legislation - press releases - tom coburn, m.d., united states senator from oklahoma

coburns' a pork loving welfare queen who voted for earmark laden bills like the farm bill, and amtrak subsidies. He's also a coward who ducks out of budget votes.

View attachment 11934

 

[uptownlivin90]

If this is really on the republicans agenda and they really going to honestly pursue this I'm going to love watching politics over the next few months.

Of course we were told that earmarks were going to be targeted by the last president. Maybe if Obama lives up to his 08 campaign promises he can "work together" with the republicans and actually accomplish something worth accomplishing. Of course big time dems are going to fight it, but how on earth is Obama going to fight it without looking like a big time flip flopper? We'll soon find out I'm sure.