View Full Version : Democrats Hide Pet Projects From Voters
WASHINGTON (AP) - After promising unprecedented openness regarding Congress' pork barrel practices, House Democrats are moving in the opposite direction as they draw up spending bills for the upcoming budget year.
Democrats are sidestepping rules approved their first day in power in January to clearly identify "earmarks" - lawmakers' requests for specific projects and contracts for their states.
Rather than including specific pet projects, grants and contracts in legislation as it is being written, Democrats are following an order by the House Appropriations Committee chairman to keep the bills free of such earmarks until it is too late for critics to effectively challenge them.
Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., says those requests for dams, community grants and research contracts for favored universities or hospitals will be added to spending measures in the fall. That is when House and Senate negotiators assemble final bills.
Such requests total billions of dollars.
As a result, most lawmakers will not get a chance to oppose specific projects as wasteful or questionable when the spending bills for various agencies get their first votes in the full House in June.
The House-Senate compromise bills due for final action in September cannot be amended and are subject to only one hour of debate, precluding challenges to individual projects.
Obey insists he is reluctantly taking the step because Appropriations Committee members and staff have not had enough time to fully review the 36,000 earmark requests that have flooded the committee.
What Obey is doing runs counter to new rules that Democrats promised would make such spending decisions more open.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070603/D8PHA8LG0.html
__________________________________
Why am I not really suprised?
Stanley Burrell
06-04-2007, 08:54 AM
A politician-to-be has an alternative motive to spend our tax dollars on.
.
Breaking news, really :rolleyes:
(Edited: FYI, I'm using the word politician as meaning just about anyone [I]not belonging to the Nine Justices branch with actual influence through spending. Such is my perspective of the contemporary definition methinks. Casual use of the P word describing any other individuals not included in the prior sentence are synonymous to your run-of-the-mill charlatans. IMHO-ly.)
Warriorbird
06-04-2007, 02:05 PM
Not that, y'know, billions in war spending has been hidden or anything like that.
Artha
06-04-2007, 02:18 PM
Not that, y'know, they campaigned on promises of openness and transparency.
Warriorbird
06-04-2007, 02:28 PM
So...you're saying hiding expenses is okay if you didn't campaign on it?
Interesting.
Artha
06-04-2007, 02:33 PM
It's certainly ok for war expenses, and it's less bad if you didn't promise not to do it.
The Democrats are getting all the rope they need to hang themselves in 08.
Let there be no confusion as to why they lose the next round of elections or when the voting public who pay attention dont buy into more half truths and false promises. ;)
Warriorbird
06-05-2007, 01:04 PM
Eh. Other than picking the wrong Presidential candidate they're not doing too badly. I don't have to think too hard to call up Republican Congressional mistakes/missteps.
The real lesson is that Congress, as a whole, is filled with slimy politicians.
Parkbandit
06-05-2007, 01:26 PM
Eh. Other than picking the wrong Presidential candidate they're not doing too badly. I don't have to think too hard to call up Republican Congressional mistakes/missteps.
The real lesson is that Congress, as a whole, is filled with slimy politicians.
So I guess we can finally agree that the Republicans don't own the Culture of Corruption?
Warriorbird
06-05-2007, 01:27 PM
I hate ALL of Congress.
The real lesson is that Congress, as a whole, is filled with slimy politicians.
I hate ALL of Congress.
Better words have not been spoken, in a long while.
Parkbandit
06-05-2007, 03:08 PM
I disagree.. there are a few people in Congress that are good human beings who truly want to do the right thing. And they are on both sides of the aisle.
TheEschaton
06-05-2007, 06:39 PM
Nevertheless, I am starting to become disillusioned by the political process.
-TheE-
grapedog
06-05-2007, 06:45 PM
Nevertheless, I am starting to become disillusioned by the political process.
-TheE-
just starting now...?
Warriorbird
06-05-2007, 10:00 PM
Congress has proved that NONE of it is fiscally conservative. That doesn't make me happy. This makes a lot of things come down to social issues for me...and as far as that goes, I'm way more liberal than conservative. National security wise, I've agreed with a lot of Republican foreign policy before...I just think Bush and company are way far away from rationality.
Apathy
06-06-2007, 07:19 PM
The government is your friend. The government would never hurt you.
The government is your friend. The government would never hurt you.
The government is your friend. The government would never hurt you.
The government is your friend. The government would never hurt you.
The government is your friend. The government would never hurt you.
The government is your friend. The government would never hurt you.
The government is your friend. The government would never hurt you.
The government is your friend. The government would never hurt you.
The government is your friend. The government would never hurt you.
The government is your friend. The government would never hurt you.
Bill Is Delayed by Republicans Over Earmarks (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/13/washington/13earmarks.html?ei=5088&en=c4c085655f5c0234&ex=1339387200&adxnnl=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1181834153-YPolMGv2x3pszp1OsYjxyA)
WASHINGTON, June 12 — No longer in charge of writing spending bills since they lost their majority, House Republicans are unleashing a previously unseen indignation at the pet projects that individual lawmakers attach to such bills.
House Republicans on Tuesday slowed passage of the $37.4 billion homeland security appropriations bill by unveiling a lengthy list of amendments to strike the projects, or earmarks, from the bill. Although no one expects the amendments to pass — and some seek only to prevent speculative future earmarks — the Republican leaders vowed to continue their delaying tactics on other spending measures expected to follow.
“We are prepared to make our case as aggressively as possible for the rest of the week and beyond,” said Brian Kennedy, a spokesman for Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader.
The volume of earmarks exploded under Republican control and played roles in several corruption scandals. Lawmakers, often acting anonymously, exploited the earmark process to steer federal spending to cronies or contributors.
In January, the House passed rules ending the anonymity, but Republicans say the new majority is cloaking the process in secrecy. Citing a heavy workload, Representative David R. Obey, the Wisconsin Democrat who heads the appropriations committee, has said the staff will not have time to review some 32,000 earmark requests before the bills are sent to the House floor, so he plans to insert them later, during the House and Senate conference and right before final approval of each bill.
Click the link to read the rest.
------------------------------------------------------
Now, going back to the first 100 hours, all the legislation that they successfully passed had 0 earmarks. In fact, one piece of legislation they passed was to put the most stringent guidelines on earmarks in who knows how long.
In this particular bill, a HOMELAND SECURITY BILL, republicans are trying to block it for things they themselves are guilty of in the past and with new regulations on the practice.
Now we can go back and forth on the general term “earmark”. Some people paint it as a bad thing. But you really have to look at each one individually, who is requesting it (no more anonymous requests now) and weigh the necessity of it. If there is money in there for LA to rebuild NO, I don’t see that as a wasteful earmark. If there is money in there to build a $2M bridge to a remote island of 100 people... eh, probably not high priority.
Parkbandit
06-14-2007, 11:37 AM
[QUOTE=Backlash;594481
Now, going back to the first 100 hours, all the legislation that they successfully passed had 0 earmarks. In fact, one piece of legislation they passed was to put the most stringent guidelines on earmarks in who knows how long.
In this particular bill, a HOMELAND SECURITY BILL, republicans are trying to block it for things they themselves are guilty of in the past and with new regulations on the practice.
Now we can go back and forth on the general term “earmark”. Some people paint it as a bad thing. But you really have to look at each one individually, who is requesting it (no more anonymous requests now) and weigh the necessity of it. If there is money in there for LA to rebuild NO, I don’t see that as a wasteful earmark. If there is money in there to build a $2M bridge to a remote island of 100 people... eh, probably not high priority.[/QUOTE]
Wait... weren't the Democrats the ones that proclaimed that this would be a new and better Congress.. who would rise above the dirty political games and be a Congress that the People could be proud of? Culture of Corruption sound familiar to you?
So your excuse for the Democrats is "Well the Republicans did it.." instead of holding their feet to the fire they set for themselves?
Typical.
You never actually read my posts. In brief, you really need to go earmark by earmark to determine what is really pork and what isn’t.
But since you brought it up, I find it hilarious that the republicans are now trying to don the mantle of being tough on earmarks and focking stupid they are holding up a national security bill over the pettiness.
Parkbandit
06-14-2007, 12:24 PM
You never actually read my posts. In brief, you really need to go earmark by earmark to determine what is really pork and what isn’t.
But since you brought it up, I find it hilarious that the republicans are now trying to don the mantle of being tough on earmarks and focking stupid they are holding up a national security bill over the pettiness.
Guilty as charged.. I basically skim your posts to prevent myself from laughing too hard.
I find it hilarious that the Democrats are now trying to don the mantle of being tough on anything. I find it equally hilarious that you would defend them for doing the same exact thing that you bitched at the Republicans for.. by now justifying it in your tiny head that "Well, the Republicans did it..." I also find your IMs to Nien hilarious as well.
Now, going back to the first 100 hours, all the legislation that they successfully passed had 0 earmarks.
Of which, how many (I'll help you out here, 6 bills were passed in the first 100 hours) were actually made into law?
HINT:
...1 (House Ethics Bill)
Please dont tout the first 100 hours as a miraculous evolutionary period of change wroght at the hands of the Democrats. It wasnt.
For further 'do as I say, not as I do' mandate of change mentality, see John Murtha as one of several examples.
I will say props to the Democrats for making the 2008 election season one of the most exciting yet.
:clap:
Eh, close. Minimum wage passed the senate 93-4.
ALL of those resolutions have passed the house. The senate is tough because of the slim majority. Even then, everything faces veto by the president.
You can’t say they aren’t trying. Plus all of those have no earmarks, good or bad.
But thats all besides the point.
95-06 saw the largest increase in earmark spending in history and has lead to many very recent investigations/convictions of republican lawmakers who were the majority. Or have you forgotten the past few years?
All of a sudden they are the champions of managing the people’s money?
LOL
Eh, close. Minimum wage passed the senate 93-4.
ALL of those resolutions have passed the house. The senate is tough because of the slim majority. Even then, everything faces veto by the president.
You can’t say they aren’t trying. Plus all of those have no earmarks, good or bad.
But thats all besides the point.
95-06 saw the largest increase in earmark spending in history and has lead to many very recent investigations/convictions of republican lawmakers who were the majority. Or have you forgotten the past few years?
All of a sudden they are the champions of managing the people’s money?
LOL
No, but as the title of this thread suggests, all is not rosey in the briar patch with what the Democrats promised in order to get elected. Its a philosophy (hypocrisy) that you should be all too well familiar with. ;)
Nice try to divert attention to it though.
How have they NOT reformed the process? Because they have. No one said they would eliminate earmarks altogether. Although, Obey is considering it if the GOP keep bitching about it.
PS. The title of this thread is dead wrong. ALL earmarks now go public with the names of who is requesting them ahead of them being added to anything.
How have they NOT reformed the process? Because they have. No one said they would eliminate earmarks altogether. Although, Obey is considering it if the GOP keep bitching about it.
I'm glad the GOP is bitching. All the Democrat earmark spending tweaks need their allotted time on the floor just everything else. Its called fiscal responsibility, not hide and seek. Nice try at diverting, but the fact that Democrats are trying to hide earmarks by waiting until the fall when there is no time for debate is contrary to their mandate that got them voted into office. If it cant stand up to scrutiny, then perhaps it has a valid reason for it to be questioned. ;)
PS. The title of this thread is dead wrong. ALL earmarks now go public with the names of who is requesting them ahead of them being added to anything.
All earmarks go public? Source please.
H.RES. 6 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HE00006:@@@D&summ2=m&)
(Sec. 404) Makes it out of order to consider: (1) legislation reported by a committee unless the report includes a list of congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, and limited tariff benefits in the bill or in the report (and the name of the requesting Member), or a statement that the proposition contains none; or (2) legislation not reported by a committee unless the chairman of each committee of initial referral has caused a list of such information or statement to be printed in the Congressional Record before its consideration.
Makes it out of order to consider: (1) an amendment to legislation to be offered at the outset of its floor consideration for amendment by a member of a committee of initial referral as designated in a Committee on Rules report to accompany a resolution prescribing a special order of business, unless the proponent has also caused such a list or statement to be printed in the Record before its consideration; or (2) a conference report to accompany legislation unless the joint explanatory statement includes such a list or statement.
Makes it out of order to consider a rule or order that waives this application.
Defines limited tax benefit as: (1) any revenue-losing provision that provides federal tax deduction, credit, exclusion, or preference to 10 or fewer beneficiaries under the Internal Revenue Code and contains eligibility criteria that are not uniform in application with respect to potential beneficiaries; or (2) any federal tax provision which provides one beneficiary temporary or permanent transition relief from a change to such Code.
Defines limited tariff benefit as a provision modifying the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States in a manner that benefits 10 or fewer entities.
Amends Rule XXIII to amend the Code of Official Conduct to prohibit a Member from conditioning the inclusion of language to provide funding for a congressional earmark, a limited tax benefit, or a limited tariff benefit in any legislation (or an accompanying report), or in any conference report on such legislation (including an accompanying joint explanatory statement), on any vote cast by another Member.
Requires a Member requesting such a funding language inclusion to provide a written statement to the chairman and ranking minority member of the committee of jurisdiction that provides specified earmark or limited tax or tariff benefit information.
Makes open for public inspection all such information and written disclosures for any congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits included in any reported legislation or conference report filed by the committee or subcommittee chairman.
Excellent.
So why are so many Democrats (according to the article) trying to skirt this rule by waiting to post earmarks in the fall where debate is limited to only 1 hour and precluding any challenges?
I'm not sure what exactly BL is talking about but if you goto http://thomas.loc.gov/ and click on any current bill (and I suppose any bill proposed since that went into effect) and click on all information it lists every amendment to the bill, who proposed it, and what action was taken. For example assuming this works : http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR02638:@@@L&summ2=m&
Because the article is wrong? Or not entirely true?
Obey says the committee to study the earmarks is crushed with work and will release the information one month before they get added to legislation. This goes for all earmarks, dem and rep.
One reason as I understand part of this legislation is so there is less partisanship over voting just because of earmarks. You vote mine down? I’ll vote yours down! Nothing gets done.
The public disclosure of earmarks and who requests them is new and while one month ahead of legislation may seem like too little time its an across the board measure that evens the playing field. As I understand it.
Plus, those congresspeople have plenty of time and staff to review that stuff, you know, if they really wanted to work at it.
TheEschaton
06-14-2007, 10:47 PM
Socialists > Democrats > Libertarians > Republicans.........................ayyaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay!
-TheE-
TheEschaton
06-14-2007, 11:03 PM
WHAT THE FUCK I JUST WANT TO EDIT MY POST TO SAY SOCIALISTS
Socialists > Democrats > Libertarians > Republicans.........................ayyaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay!
-TheE-
In your dreams perhaps...
LOL You really need to change the title of this thread to “President Hides Pet Projects from Voters”
White House 'Duplicity' Over Pork Spending Draws GOP Ire (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/06/white-house-dup.html)
Move over, bacon.
Just a few months after blasting the congressional practice of diverting millions in taxpayer dollars to pet projects, President Bush has slipped into current legislation more than 100 so-called "earmarks" worth over $1 billion -- including nearly $6 million for work on the White House.
The provisions appear to draw a stark contrast with the president's harsh words for earmarks and their proponents in his State of the Union speech in January.
"These special interest items are often slipped into bills at the last hour -- when not even C-SPAN is watching," Bush said. The president proclaimed that "the time has come to end this practice," and urged Congress to cut the number and cost of earmarks "at least in half" this year.
---------------------------------------
Do as I say, not as I do.
Latrinsorm
06-30-2007, 11:20 AM
I think I'd be much more concerned that the President is apparently personally capable of creating legislation now. How did that happen?
I think I'd be much more concerned that the President is apparently personally capable of creating legislation now. How did that happen?
Patriot Act. Actually, I don’t know, but I would not be surprised if it were.
Latrinsorm
06-30-2007, 11:28 AM
Well I looked through it, and the only thing I found that seemed relevant was:
"SEC. 509. HOW AWESOME PRESIDENT BUSH IS.
It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the President can do whatever he wants whenever he wants so long as his name includes and is limited to the letters B U S and H;
(2) this President Bush is really a great guy. Shouldn't we give him a raise or something?"
I mean, that seems like a dead giveaway.
Artha
06-30-2007, 11:28 AM
He recommends it to a senator, the same as anyone else.
Except he's the president, so it's going to make it to congress, not the same as anyone else.
It does appear duplicitous; however, there is a small difference. Something you left out of your quote (the rest of the story).
The White House disagrees.
"There's a striking difference here" between White House earmarks and congressional earmarks, said administration spokesman Sean Kevelighan. The White House chooses earmarks "[in] a way that is competitive or merit-based," while Congress tends to choose earmarks "based on geography, seniority and special interests," he said.
The president's earmarks, for projects including national park improvements, land purchases and new government facilities, have drawn unusual on-the-record criticism from Republican lawmakers, who typically eschew public displays of disaffection with the White House.
It probably would have been better to submit these at an earlier time, nonetheless.
Parkbandit
06-30-2007, 11:52 AM
Actually, I don’t know,
We pretty much always go by this rule when reading your posts.
thefarmer
07-01-2007, 02:47 AM
The White House disagrees.
"There's a striking difference here" between White House earmarks and congressional earmarks, said administration spokesman Sean Kevelighan. The White House chooses earmarks "[in] a way that is competitive or merit-based," while Congress tends to choose earmarks "based on geography, seniority and special interests," he said..
A White House spokesman plays up Bush and bashes the (barely) Dem led congress for decision making?
Eh.. Did you really think the (and any) administration would admit to picking pork based on who has the most money and influence?
A White House spokesman plays up Bush and bashes the (barely) Dem led congress for decision making?
Eh.. Did you really think the (and any) administration would admit to picking pork based on who has the most money and influence?
Until you can demonstrate that all the earmarks that Bush put through even remotely demonstrate having a personal benefit that resembles the pet pork projects the other members of Congress put through with their earmarks then I'll give you credit for having a viable argument. Until then, you're just spewing partisan politics out of your ass.
Much akin to fertilizing a field in preparation for the 08 'planting' season.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.