Dems. are still earmark Junkies--but GOP goes straight-

oreo

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2008
Messages
18,102
Reaction score
2,921
Points
290
Location
rocky mountains
Press coverage of the budget frenzy on Capitol Hill has suggested that pork-barrel earmark spending is still a bipartisan problem, that after months of self-righteous rhetoric about fiscal discipline, Republicans and Democrats remain equal-opportunity earmarkers.

It's not true. A new analysis by a group of federal-spending watchdogs shows a striking imbalance between the parties when it comes to earmark requests. Democrats remain raging spenders, while Republicans have made enormous strides in cleaning up their act. In the Senate, the GOP made only one-third as many earmark requests as Democrats for 2011, and in the House, Republicans have nearly given up earmarking altogether -- while Democrats roll on.

The watchdog groups -- Taxpayers for Common Sense, WashingtonWatch.com, and Taxpayers Against Earmarks -- counted total earmark requests in the 2011 budget. Those requests were made by lawmakers earlier this year, but Democratic leaders, afraid that their party's spending priorities might cost them at the polls, decided not to pass a budget before the Nov. 2 elections. This week, they distilled those earmark requests -- threw some out, combined others -- into the omnibus bill that was under consideration in the Senate until Majority Leader Harry Reid pulled it Thursday night. While that bill was loaded with spending, looking back at the original earmark requests tells us a lot about the spending inclinations of both parties.

In the 2011 House budget, the groups found that House Democrats requested 18,189 earmarks, which would cost the taxpayers a total of $51.7 billion, while House Republicans requested just 241 earmarks, for a total of $1 billion.

Where did those GOP earmark requests come from? Just four Republican lawmakers: South Carolina Rep. Henry Brown, who did not run for re-election this year; Louisiana Rep. Joseph Cao, who lost his bid for re-election; maverick Texas Rep. Ron Paul; and spending king Rep. Don Young of Alaska. The other Republican members of the House -- 174 of them -- requested a total of zero earmarks.

Talk to Republicans, and they'll say it would be nice if there were no earmark requests at all, but party leaders can't control everybody. "Brown's retiring, Cao's defeated, Paul is Paul and Young is Young," one GOP aide shrugs. Still, the bottom line is that the House GOP's nearly perfect renunciation of earmarks is striking. "For a voluntary moratorium, it was impressive that there were only four scofflaws," says Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense.

The Senate is a different story. But even though some Republicans are still seeking earmarks, Democrats are by far the bigger spenders. The watchdog groups found that Democrats requested 15,133 earmarks for 2011, for a total of $54.9 billion, while Republicans requested 5,352 earmarks, for a total of $22 billion.
Dems are earmark junkies but GOP goes straight | Byron York | Politics | Washington Examiner

So AGAIN--who are the biggest spenders in Washington D.C? DEMOCRATS.

$obama-lip-service.jpg
 
Last edited:

Lakhota

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
88,778
Reaction score
12,015
Points
2,220
Location
Native America
Bravo, however now is a piss poor time to be reigning in earmarks when government should be further stimulating the economy.
 
Joined
Jul 14, 2010
Messages
1,617
Reaction score
112
Points
0
Location
NY 26th finally Dem!
People love their earmarks, hate other people's. The whole thing is a canard for brainwashed dupes. There have always been earmarks, and there always will be. Another name for them is federal projects- they should be good projects, is all. This is pure pub electioneering, MORE paralysis.
 
Last edited:
OP
oreo

oreo

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2008
Messages
18,102
Reaction score
2,921
Points
290
Location
rocky mountains
Bravo, however now is a piss poor time to be reigning in earmarks when government should be further stimulating the economy.
Further stimulating the economy-B.S.--a lot of this packed with pork nonsense--that doesn't create a job. In fact--the 450 BILLION dollars with over 9,000 earmarks in it--that Obama signed off while he was stating we were in the worst economic crisis since the great depression--and this 1 week after he signed off on the 868 BILLION dollar stimulus bill--according to your statement we should be in JOBS HOG HEAVEN right now--LOL
 
Last edited:

Rat in the Hat

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
21,949
Reaction score
6,018
Points
198
The OP already mentioned that, deanie.


In the 2011 House budget, the groups found that House Democrats requested 18,189 earmarks, which would cost the taxpayers a total of $51.7 billion, while House Republicans requested just 241 earmarks, for a total of $1 billion.
But you didn't want us to notice that the Dems asked for $51.7 billion, did you?
 
OP
oreo

oreo

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2008
Messages
18,102
Reaction score
2,921
Points
290
Location
rocky mountains
People love their earmarks, hate other people's. The whole thing is a canard for brainwashed dupes. There have always been earmarks, and there always will be. Another name for them is federal projects- they should be good projects, is all. This is pure pub electioneering, MORE paralysis.
So you then only disagree with earmarks when the opposite side of the isle are asking for them--when you just found out that Democrats asked for 50 times the amount that repubicans requested--now you're O.K. with earmarks--:lol: RIGHT
 
OP
oreo

oreo

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2008
Messages
18,102
Reaction score
2,921
Points
290
Location
rocky mountains
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 14, 2010
Messages
1,617
Reaction score
112
Points
0
Location
NY 26th finally Dem!
A normal GOP would compromise,- this is pure politics, and the Examiner is pure Pub Propaganda- the real story is NEVER there. It's just another part of the paralysis and stalling of the recovery. Unfortunately for the dismal hypocrite GOP, 70 % of the country is catching on to the A-hole Pubs in congress, at least. Keep listening to Rev. Moon, the A-hole Murdoch, and bought off Pubs...
 
R

rdean

Guest
and yet you always beat them at their own game, deanie.

you're a fucking marvel
And democrats requested 51.7 BILLION dollars in earmarks. Who just got their ass kicked?

Let me see 1 billion compared to 51.7 BILLION.
You did Dum Dum.



My post that I linked to:

Republicans are so funny. They always think of "earmarks" as money just "given away".

I remember when John McCain mocked the effort to save honeybees. Seems they are disappearing in record numbers. Crops they pollinate total at least 15 billion a year. 80% of those crops are pollinated by bees. Beekeepers have been freaking out. Farmers have been freaking out. Republicans laugh.

Looks like the honeybee loss may have leveled off. But who knows what the future may bring? Especially with non existent climate change. Republican scientists. Those are the guys we should listen to. If you can find any.

Bee Informed Partnership | Be Included, Be Involved, Bee Informed

Nationwide Partnership Seeks to Halve Honeybee Losses
 
OP
oreo

oreo

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2008
Messages
18,102
Reaction score
2,921
Points
290
Location
rocky mountains
A normal GOP would compromise,- this is pure politics, and the Examiner is pure Pub Propaganda- the real story is NEVER there. It's just another part of the paralysis and stalling of the recovery. Unfortunately for the dismal hypocrite GOP, 70 % of the country is catching on to the A-hole Pubs in congress, at least. Keep listening to Rev. Moon, the A-hole Murdoch, and bought off Pubs...

So now a taxpayer watch dog group is Lying? You'll note that they point out the number and amount requested by BOTH parties for the 2011 budget.

Now while you liberals have been all over the "tea party congress" requesting 1 billion in earmarks--you neglected to disclose or look at what your cronies asked for--more than 50 times more than republicans--or 51.7 BILLION dollars in earmarks.

Now that you've got it--it's a lie---:lol::lol:
 
Last edited:

ladyliberal

Progressive Princess
Joined
Aug 5, 2011
Messages
1,253
Reaction score
291
Points
48
The short version: good for Republicans, they seem to have aligned their earmark requests with their rhetoric.

The long version:

I have a few concerns with their methodology:

-- While the group is nominally nonpartisan, given how clearly their philosophy aligns with one party over the other, I'm skeptical that they are genuinely neutral.

-- These are earmark requests. While they do say something about ideology, the number that is of more interest is the amount of earmarked dollars that actually get spent.

-- The Republicans seem to have interpreted their mandate as cutting spending over the "bringing home the bacon" to their districts. While plausible, that turns decades of political theory on its head. I'm curious how this will work for them in their elections.

-- Earmarks are not necessarily bad, and in any case account for only a small fraction of government spending.
 
OP
oreo

oreo

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2008
Messages
18,102
Reaction score
2,921
Points
290
Location
rocky mountains
The short version: good for Republicans, they seem to have aligned their earmark requests with their rhetoric.

The long version:

I have a few concerns with their methodology:

-- While the group is nominally nonpartisan, given how clearly their philosophy aligns with one party over the other, I'm skeptical that they are genuinely neutral.

-- These are earmark requests. While they do say something about ideology, the number that is of more interest is the amount of earmarked dollars that actually get spent.

-- The Republicans seem to have interpreted their mandate as cutting spending over the "bringing home the bacon" to their districts. While plausible, that turns decades of political theory on its head. I'm curious how this will work for them in their elections.

-- Earmarks are not necessarily bad, and in any case account for only a small fraction of government spending.

I don't know--I still think a billion dollars is a lot of money--let alone 51.7 billion dollars.

And I am a little tired of an explanation that a couple of hundred billion is just a "smidgen" as compared to our federal budget.

$1 billion dollars.jpg

1 billion dollars--$100.00 dollar bills stacked on pallets.


House dems. wanted 52 of the above in earmarks for the 2011 budget.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 14, 2010
Messages
1,617
Reaction score
112
Points
0
Location
NY 26th finally Dem!
Pure pub electioneering and paralysis- they were never going to let this bill go anywhere ANYWAY. So they don't ask for earmarks, don't pass it of course, their BS watchdog group "reports" are reported by their BS pub propaganda machine Rush, Fox, the BS Examiner etc, and their BS bought off bloggers- and tens of millions of morons like you are further brainwashed by BS...LOL!
 
OP
oreo

oreo

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2008
Messages
18,102
Reaction score
2,921
Points
290
Location
rocky mountains
Pure pub electioneering and paralysis- they were never going to let this bill go anywhere ANYWAY. So they don't ask for earmarks, don't pass it of course, their BS watchdog group "reports" are reported by their BS pub propaganda machine Rush, Fox, the BS Examiner etc, and their BS bought off bloggers- and tens of millions of morons like you are further brainwashed by BS...LOL!

It's more than clear that anything you don't LIKE is a lie. You do it all the time--and you're doing now--and against a bi-partisan taxpayer watchdog group that was more than willing to point out BOTH parties earmark requests.

And because democrats asked for 51.7 BILLION in earmarks and republicans asked for 1 BILLION you're pissed about it.

FACTS are hazardous to a liberals BRAIN.
 
Last edited:

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
56,488
Reaction score
14,173
Points
2,180
Location
In a Republic, actually
People love their earmarks, hate other people's. The whole thing is a canard for brainwashed dupes. There have always been earmarks, and there always will be. Another name for them is federal projects- they should be good projects, is all. This is pure pub electioneering, MORE paralysis.
The short version: good for Republicans, they seem to have aligned their earmark requests with their rhetoric.

The long version:

I have a few concerns with their methodology:

-- While the group is nominally nonpartisan, given how clearly their philosophy aligns with one party over the other, I'm skeptical that they are genuinely neutral.

-- These are earmark requests. While they do say something about ideology, the number that is of more interest is the amount of earmarked dollars that actually get spent.

-- The Republicans seem to have interpreted their mandate as cutting spending over the "bringing home the bacon" to their districts. While plausible, that turns decades of political theory on its head. I'm curious how this will work for them in their elections.

-- Earmarks are not necessarily bad, and in any case account for only a small fraction of government spending.
Correct, well said on both counts.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top