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

[oreo]

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.

The Federal Government has continually used earmarks for extortion and bribery--in their buy your VOTE policy.

They shelve earmark requests--and if a bill comes up where they need votes--they're sure to get a vote from a politician--who may be against a bill--but will vote for it anyway--because they have added in his/her earmark.

If a state really wants something that bad--the constituents of that state can figure how to come up with the money.

What may be good for a politicians reelection--can be very BAD for the citizens of this country. And we just witnessed that with Obamacare--where VOTES were bought off with earmarks.

Obamacare would have never passed without the use of bribery.

 

[hellofromwarsaw]

Pubs were never going to pass this or ANYTHING ELSE, since 1/2010. So it's pure BS electioneering, dumazz pub dupes...Paralysis, propaganda, brainwashed dupes- that's you LOL! Only 3 days till it starts to get REALLY obvious and embarassing...AGAIN.

 

[hellofromwarsaw]

Obamacare would have passed easily, with 6 Pub votes at least, if the Pubs weren't being dismal un-American no compromise A-holes all the way!! It's a GD compromise Pub bill, but pubs won't allow any cooperation at ALL - and their huge propaganda machine has half the dupes believing the muslim Kemyan Marxist has produced a hugely expensive gov't takeover, and global warming is a scam, etc etc. The world is aghast at Pub's shennanigans, and the dupes hateful ignorance. End of story, dupes.

 

[edthecynic]

Apparently you didn't get the memo, "Earmarks are good, they are the will of the people."

May 16, 2011
RUSH: I have never been one to base my entire view of a politician on whether or not they supported earmarks, 'cause it's not that much money. I understand the moral aspect and I understand that earmarks open up the opportunity for blackmail and this kind of thing. I understand all the arguments about them. You know, McCain hardly a purist, made earmarks the centerpiece of a failed presidential campaign. It just ain't that big a deal! It certainly is not enough to disqualify somebody from being pure. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, one of the leading conservatives in the Senate, insists that earmarks are actually a more responsive way to reach the voters -- respond to the voters, the will of the people -- than leaving such decisions to unelected bureaucrats. He wants to spend the money.

He says (paraphrased): "Look, this earmark money is going to be spent. I'd rather the elected representatives of the people do it than some faceless bureaucrat at some agency or some president."

 

[oreo]

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.

Earmarks are HORRIBLE--because they are used in the Federal Government's policy of BUY YOUR VOTE. This is how Obamacare passed. With out the behinds doors deals being made this bill would have NEVER passed.

They take earmarks--put them on a shelf--and when a bill comes up for a vote--and congressional leaders need a politician to vote for a bill that is reluctant--they just add in their earmark for a YES vote.

It's time earmarks are GONE. It amounts to nothing more than CORRUPTION at the Federal Government level--aka bribery and extortion.

 

[oreo]

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!

Now they tabled them to use for bribery on Obama's next enormous spending bill in Obama's buy YOUR VOTE policy.

 

[hellofromwarsaw]

Again- the Pubs won't let ANYTHING pass- total BS...Just make sure it's GOOD pork...just pass SOMETHING!!

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Being against Earmarks is soo 2008 for the Democrats. They only pretended to hate Earmarks when DA BOOOOOSH and Republicans were in power. Now they're all for em. Just like raising Debt Limits. Never ever trust the Democrats. They lie.

 

[oreo]

Being against Earmarks is soo 2008 for the Democrats. They only pretended to hate Earmarks when DA BOOOOOSH and Republicans were in power. Now they're all for em. Just like raising Debt Limits. Never ever trust the Democrats. They lie.

Republicans asked for 1 billion compared to democrats asking for 51.7 BILLION.--so do you want to re-do your reply or do you just have a serious reading comprehension problem?---

 

[hellofromwarsaw]

You fall for Pub BS every time, dontcha? Dems have to pretend this is a real issue every time Pubs run on it. I like good federal projects myself. Pure pubcrappe.

 

[oreo]

You fall for Pub BS every time, dontcha? Dems have to pretend this is a real issue every time Pubs run on it. I like good federal projects myself. Pure pubcrappe.

By Federal Projects--you mean all those road and bridge projects that we borrowed and spent 868 billion dollars on---That was promised to create MILLIONS of private sector jobs--that didn't--

 

[hellofromwarsaw]

40% of that was tax cuts for Pubs, too bad- and about 150 billion for highways- but keep repeating the BS...Rush.

 

[hortysir]

40% of that was tax cuts for Pubs, too bad- and about 150 billion for highways- but keep repeating the BS...Rush.

Link????

 

[oreo]

40% of that was tax cuts for Pubs, too bad- and about 150 billion for highways- but keep repeating the BS...Rush.

And billions went to China so they could build wind turbines for us.

Obama's Stimulus Money Spent Overseas, Jobs in China - ABC News

Must be one of those federal government projects you're talking about--and THAT you like--

Obama's Stimulus Money Spent Overseas, Jobs in China - ABC News

 

[norcal21jg]

hmm

 

[waltky]

Politicians circumventing the earmark ban...

Despite earmark ban, lawmakers try to give money to hundreds of pet projects
November 29,`11 - Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), along with Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), called Tuesday for a permanent end to earmarking.

Members of the House and the Senate attempted to pack hundreds of special spending provisions into at least 10 bills in the summer and fall, less than a year after congressional leaders declared a moratorium on earmarks, congressional records show. The moratorium, announced last November in the House and in February in the Senate, is a verbal commitment by the Republican leadership to prohibit lawmakers from directing federal funds to handpicked projects and groups in their districts. Lawmakers have tried to get around the moratorium by promising to allow other groups to compete for the funds. But the legislative language is so narrowly tailored that critics consider the practice to be earmarking by another name.

The efforts to resurrect spending on pet projects reveal the tenuous nature of current reform efforts. Two senators have publicly called out their colleagues and will introduce legislation Wednesday that would ban earmarking with the force of law. “I have heard too many appropriators say informally that they are very hopeful that we can get back to earmarking in the future with few restrictions,” said Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), who is co-authoring the bill with Sen. Patrick J. Toomey (R-Pa.). “That has come out of the mouths of Democrats and Republicans.”

Most of the spending bills — which will determine the nation’s priorities for defense, transportation, water and other needs — are still being debated, so it is unclear how many special provisions will survive. Some that have been proposed by one committee have already eliminated by another. Even as some lawmakers attempt to permanently ban earmarks, others are trying to revive them in certain contexts.

This month, Rep. Doris Matsui (D-Calif.) wrote to House leaders asking that some flood-protection earmarks be restored, saying her project has been publicly vetted and her constituents’ safety is put at risk by flood-prone rivers around Sacramento. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), a critic of earmarks, last year began calling for Congress to have a role again in directing money for road and highway projects in the transportation bill, provided that the process is “open and transparent.”

MORE

See also:

Sens. Toomey, McCaskill stir pot with proposal for permanent earmarks ban
11/29/11 - Sens. Pat Toomey (R-Penn.) and Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) will team up on Wednesday to unveil legislation that would permanently ban earmarks in appropriations bills.

The move sets up a potentially major conflict within both the Republican and Democratic parties next year. Congress is operating under a temporary, unofficial ban on earmarks through the end of the 112th Congress next year and many appropriators miss the opportunity to direct funding to home states and districts. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has not yet made clear to party members where he stands on Toomey-McCaskill, according to sources, but he has been a champion of earmarks in the past.

Reid voted with 55 other senators from both parties to oppose an official two-year moratorium on earmarks in late 2010. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), another longtime user of earmarks, voted in favor of the two-year moratorium but has not yet made clear whether he can support a permanent ban. Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) has repeatedly said that earmarks should be brought back if transparency can be enforced.

In contrast, moderate senators favor abandoning pork. Sens. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), Mark Udall (D-Colo.) and Mark Warner (D-Va.) voted last November to put a moratorium in place. An aide said that McCaskill and Toomey are just starting their effort to build support for a permanent ban and said they are not pushing for a vote anytime soon.

An aide who opposes the ban said senators are already chaffing under the temporary ban. The aide also worried that the McCaskill-Toomey effort would complicate an already difficult December calendar for the Senate during which Reid will try to move a $900 billion omnibus spending bill devoid of earmarks. Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense predicted that the ban will be a “tight vote,” given the bad reputation that earmarks have gotten.

MORE

 

[editec]

Earmarks are either good or bad depending on what they're funding.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Bravo, however now is a piss poor time to be reigning in earmarks when government should be further stimulating the economy.

You mean stimulating states which bailout union pensions.