Dems Let The Pork Flow And You Pay For It

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
Perhaps Republicans have learned from their election loss and really do want to curb the insane level of government spending

It is clear the Dems are not going to keep any of the promisies made to the voters, as they want to spend MORE money then Republicans did



Hogs on the Hill
TODAY'S EDITORIAL

snip.........


Meanwhile, House Republicans, who spent more than a decade proposing or signing off on rising earmarks and pork-barrel spending, want the public to believe that they have suddenly seen the errors of their ways. They have been pounding away at House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey -- the highly volatile, very liberal, big-spending Wisconsin Democrat -- and he deserves the rhetorical pummeling he has been receiving. Mr. Obey's idea of earmark reform is to have the House vote on appropriations bills without knowing anything about the thousands upon thousands of earmarks that will be added as the bills make their way to conference committees with the Senate. Mr. Obey pledges to reveal the earmarks before the August recess, giving lawmakers the opportunity to object in writing. This, of course, is ludicrous. And it clearly makes a mockery of Speaker Nancy Pelosi's repeated promises to end the culture of corruption, which has afflicted the earmark process, and provide citizens with the most open, most transparent House in history.

Yes, Republicans purportedly want more transparency in the earmark process. But by how much do they really want to reduce earmark spending? Apparently, representatives from both parties have inundated the Appropriations Committee with about 32,000 earmark requests. To his credit, House Minority Leader John Boehner, having never accepted a single earmark for his Ohio district, has more credibility on the subject of earmark reform than the White House and the majority of his Republican congressional colleagues, who, to the best of our knowledge, haven't exactly sworn off earmarks. For example, when Republican Mike Rogers rightly objected to the flagrantly questionable $23 million earmark for a National Drug Intelligence Center in Johnstown, Pa., the home of appropriations heavyweight Jack Murtha, columnist Robert Novak observed that Mr. Rogers had 10 current earmarks costing more than $45 million.

According to a 2006 study by the Congressional Research Service, Republicans, who captured Congress in the 1994 elections, reduced earmarks from 4,146 ($23.2 billion) in fiscal 1994 to 3,023 ($19.5 billion) in fiscal 1996. By fiscal 2005, however, when Republicans controlled both Congress and the White House, earmarks totaled 15,877 ($47.4 billion).

If Republicans are looking for fiscal credibility, they can begin by offering a budget plan that does not increase the national debt by $2.5 trillion during the last five years of what the president projects to be the nation's longest (November 2001-September 2012) economic expansion in history.

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20070614-061907-3556r.htm
 

SolarEnergy1

Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
305
Reaction score
25
Points
16
Perhaps Republicans have learned from their election loss and really do want to curb the insane level of government spending

It is clear the Dems are not going to keep any of the promisies made to the voters, as they want to spend MORE money then Republicans did



Hogs on the Hill
TODAY'S EDITORIAL

snip.........


Meanwhile, House Republicans, who spent more than a decade proposing or signing off on rising earmarks and pork-barrel spending, want the public to believe that they have suddenly seen the errors of their ways. They have been pounding away at House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey -- the highly volatile, very liberal, big-spending Wisconsin Democrat -- and he deserves the rhetorical pummeling he has been receiving. Mr. Obey's idea of earmark reform is to have the House vote on appropriations bills without knowing anything about the thousands upon thousands of earmarks that will be added as the bills make their way to conference committees with the Senate. Mr. Obey pledges to reveal the earmarks before the August recess, giving lawmakers the opportunity to object in writing. This, of course, is ludicrous. And it clearly makes a mockery of Speaker Nancy Pelosi's repeated promises to end the culture of corruption, which has afflicted the earmark process, and provide citizens with the most open, most transparent House in history.

Yes, Republicans purportedly want more transparency in the earmark process. But by how much do they really want to reduce earmark spending? Apparently, representatives from both parties have inundated the Appropriations Committee with about 32,000 earmark requests. To his credit, House Minority Leader John Boehner, having never accepted a single earmark for his Ohio district, has more credibility on the subject of earmark reform than the White House and the majority of his Republican congressional colleagues, who, to the best of our knowledge, haven't exactly sworn off earmarks. For example, when Republican Mike Rogers rightly objected to the flagrantly questionable $23 million earmark for a National Drug Intelligence Center in Johnstown, Pa., the home of appropriations heavyweight Jack Murtha, columnist Robert Novak observed that Mr. Rogers had 10 current earmarks costing more than $45 million.

According to a 2006 study by the Congressional Research Service, Republicans, who captured Congress in the 1994 elections, reduced earmarks from 4,146 ($23.2 billion) in fiscal 1994 to 3,023 ($19.5 billion) in fiscal 1996. By fiscal 2005, however, when Republicans controlled both Congress and the White House, earmarks totaled 15,877 ($47.4 billion).

If Republicans are looking for fiscal credibility, they can begin by offering a budget plan that does not increase the national debt by $2.5 trillion during the last five years of what the president projects to be the nation's longest (November 2001-September 2012) economic expansion in history.

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20070614-061907-3556r.htm

LOL they need to make up for these years that they havent had control of the senate....must be nice to have blank checks
 

Truthmatters

Diamond Member
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
80,182
Reaction score
2,265
Points
1,283
Now go look at who spends more and you will find that historically Dems spend less than Rs.


So if you think Dems are pigs what does that make your team?
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
Now go look at who spends more and you will find that historically Dems spend less than Rs.


So if you think Dems are pigs what does that make your team?
Dems are going for a new record
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
Now go look at who spends more and you will find that historically Dems spend less than Rs.


So if you think Dems are pigs what does that make your team?
and they want a $400 billion plus tax increase to pay for part of the increased spending
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
Now go look at who spends more and you will find that historically Dems spend less than Rs.


So if you think Dems are pigs what does that make your team?
Now Dems want to change the name of pork and hope you will not notice


Earmarks by another name
Sunday, Jun 17, 2007

By David Sanders

It was never a question of "if," but always "when" Democrats would give into Washington's corrupt ways.

When Democrats took the reins of the government's legislative branch five months ago, Nancy Pelosi, the newly installed speaker of the House, pledged that she would oversee "the most ethical Congress in history."

The previous Republican management left the bar pretty low. Simply being ethical would have been a drastic improvement.

Included in her Capitol Hill transformation was a crackdown on legislative "earmarks." She led an effort to change Washington's time-honored practice of members sticking their favorite pork-barrel projects into legislation.

Lest we forget, earmarks gave the country Alaska's infamous "bridge to nowhere," which carried a price tag of $233 million. Earmarks also created the "culture of corruption" by spawning undesirables like lobbyist Jack Abramoff who traded large campaign contributions to members who would repay the favor by using earmarks to funnel money to his clients.

It could be said that earmarks helped usher in November's Democratic electoral sweep.

Congress changed its rules. If members would be so bold to ask taxpayers to fund a special pet project back home, they would have to do so in full view of the public, facing potential scrutiny. The rule change, passed under the title of "Congressional Earmark Reform," required that members' names and projects be listed in the appropriate legislation. This would allow members to chastise other members for earmarks during normal debate, which takes place on the House floor while reporters are reporting and cameras are watching.

It was a good reform, one that earned Pelosi and her fellow House Democrats well-deserved praise.

Pelosi's pledge to "drain the swamp" was short-lived. Apparently, she didn't mean what she said. Now she is allowing her Democratic colleagues to refill it, but in doing so they are trying to obscure it from public view with a huge fence.
http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/2007/06/17/DavidJSanders/342436.html
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top