red states rule
Senior Member
- May 30, 2006
- 16,011
- 573
- 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
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
