Well, whoever wins it, let's hope they remember this when they get into office... along with the fact that they can veto bills.

So now the Dems are pandering to the knuckledragger demographic, eh?

I like the 2/3 majority rule, but I don't think it will do much to stop pork barrel spending. It will at least provide visibility.

Shaggy_C: So now the Dems are pandering to the knuckledragger demographic, eh?

I like the 2/3 majority rule, but I don't think it will do much to stop pork barrel spending. It will at least provide visibility.

I don't know about visibility, but it'll almost certainly drag down the amount of legislation being past to basicly nothing.

while pork barrell spending is pretty sad.... the fact is, it really doesn't amount to shiat in the grand scheme of things.

John McCain ranting about earmarks is just cover for the fact that he wants to expand the budget (on the military). Earmarks are a tiny part of the budget. Cutting them off doesnt' fix much.

ChopSueyKS: I don't know about visibility, but it'll almost certainly drag down the amount of legislation being past to basicly nothing.

Well part of the problem with earmarks is the 'if you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours' mentality; all this means is there will have to be even more back scratching, which I fear could lead to massive blocs of pork supporters.

Shaggy_C: ChopSueyKS: I don't know about visibility, but it'll almost certainly drag down the amount of legislation being past to basicly nothing.

Well part of the problem with earmarks is the 'if you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours' mentality; all this means is there will have to be even more back scratching, which I fear could lead to massive blocs of pork supporters.

Well that and nobody (voters too) wants to give up their pork. Nope, they want someone else to give up all their pork. As long as this mentality is maintained we'll get nowhere.

Bill Frist: while pork barrell spending is pretty sad.... the fact is, it really doesn't amount to shiat in the grand scheme of things.

John McCain ranting about earmarks is just cover for the fact that he wants to expand the budget (on the military). Earmarks are a tiny part of the budget. Cutting them off doesnt' fix much.

This is true.

I look forward to the day when eliminating earmarks cuts spending in a signifigant way.

We should go for the low hanging fruit first, like the billins we spend in Iraq every day.

I wish in real life, whenever Bush Jr. tries to lecture Congress all the Reps and Senators you should just point laugh and tell him he's pretty funny.

Compare "pork barrel spending" to the amount we're spending in Iraq. Basically, people who complain about pork barrel spending are lamenting pennies dropped down the drain; but at the same time, they cannot help spending hundreds of dollars at the strip club.

Bill Frist
Cutting them off doesnt' fix much.

I don't know, a billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you're talking about real money.

Just because we waste $100 million is not a reason to argue it's not worth saving $100,000. We have to start somewhere.

Shaggy_C: Well part of the problem with earmarks is the 'if you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours' mentality; all this means is there will have to be even more back scratching, which I fear could lead to massive blocs of pork supporters.

That and the fact pork is thrown into legislation that doesn't concern it at all. Problem is, it's a waste of time picking it all out again. Line veto might work better for this than 2/3rds majority.

Defense funding bill, throw in something about a bridge in Bumbleton, TN in that bill!

You are a communist if you don't support the troops and pass this...never mind the bridge and all of the other junk oozing out of the bill.

wraithbane:

Sure, but I'm just saying it is being used by people like McCain as a distraction to the real spending problems.

inglixthemad: Well that and nobody (voters too) wants to give up their pork. Nope, they want someone else to give up all their pork. As long as this mentality is maintained we'll get nowhere.

Hell, fill in the blank. Taxes, pork, essential programs. Everyone is for small government unless it directly affects them...

Bill Frist
Sure, but I'm just saying it is being used by people like McCain as a distraction to the real spending problems.

Welcome to politics, this is what both sides do. Both are telling us they are the fiscally responsible party, but they couldn't pass this bill. Pretty well proves they're both blowing smoke up our asses.

What gets me are the "we could be spending that money here" arguments. Just seems to say that the person making the argument only has a problem with the cost because the cost isn't going to their program. I have no doubt that if the money were being spent on Health care, we'd see damn near a universal reverse in people's opinions.

As I said, we need to start saving it everywhere, not saying, "well, this small amount doesn't matter compared to that amount". That's the thinking that lands millions of people in bankruptcy, and it exactly where we're going to end up. How can we seriously expect them to make big cuts if they refuse to make small ones?

There is a lot wrong with the budget. The earmarks are only a tiny party. To me, it's a start. I'm guessing the anti-earmark politicians think they can "fix" this and then nothing else though.

Someone help me out here.. I was under the impression that earmarks were budget allocation requests; ie, the budget has been decided on and earmarks do not expand it, but just appropriate the funds therein. I also thought that true "pork barrel" funds were things written into the budget bill that actually increased the size of the budget. Is that right?

If so, it seems to me that this fuss about earmarks is a bit overblown, and we should be more concerned about congress simply passing smaller budgets.

I love how Hillary and Barry voted to stop pork barrel spending, only because they knew it would fail and didn't want to have to try and defend themselves for voting against it.

John McCain has said time and time again he will veto ANY bill that comes across his desk with an earmark attached.

rustik: Someone help me out here.. I was under the impression that earmarks were budget allocation requests; ie, the budget has been decided on and earmarks do not expand it, but just appropriate the funds therein. I also thought that true "pork barrel" funds were things written into the budget bill that actually increased the size of the budget. Is that right?

Right on the first part, wrong on the second. Earmarks do not increase the size of the budget; neither do pork barrel projects. They are the same thing; the only difference is that one is looked upon as dirty and corrupt use of public funds for personal gain.

ZachF81: I love how Hillary and Barry voted to stop pork barrel spending, only because they knew it would fail and didn't want to have to try and defend themselves for voting against it.

John McCain has said time and time again he will veto ANY bill that comes across his desk with an earmark attached.

McCain has said this, but I doubt it's true.

I don't mean he lied, I'm sure he has every intention of using the veto just like bush has. What I doubt is that he will veto every piece of pork he sees. It's simply too easy to put them into important bills. (Important to McCain, that is)

Shaggy_C: rustik: Someone help me out here.. I was under the impression that earmarks were budget allocation requests; ie, the budget has been decided on and earmarks do not expand it, but just appropriate the funds therein. I also thought that true "pork barrel" funds were things written into the budget bill that actually increased the size of the budget. Is that right?

Right on the first part, wrong on the second. Earmarks do not increase the size of the budget; neither do pork barrel projects. They are the same thing; the only difference is that one is looked upon as dirty and corrupt use of public funds for personal gain.

i think that point is a bit nebulous.

if you have expenditures directly tied to revenues, then setting an earmark not only doesn't grow the expenditures, it is actually the responsible thing to do... budgeting is, in essence, nothing but setting earmarks for your money.

on the other hand, if you have expenditures not backed by any real revenue stream, just floating on the bonds market, then cutting them does not mean you have extra money lying around unaccounted for. it means you have extra debt lying around, or more correctly, not being issued.

if they already issued the debt, it's a revenue stream, money already there, cutting earmarks doesn't accomplish anything, etc. but if they issue the debt in reaction to the budget, after the fact, cutting earmarks could conceivably reduce the budget.

that being said, earmarks are not where the attention needs to be directed, as they make up such a small percentage of the budget, and some of them are actually quite crucial to the legitimate functions of the government.

When someone else's Senator or Congressman takes something home to them, we call it "pork barrel" and are mad. When ours bring something home to us, we call it "doing his job" and re-elect him. This is why "pork barrel" will never go away.

Batiatus: See to it that I don't misuse the money.

Gracchus: Don't be ridiculous. I'm a senator.

Wraithbane: Bill Frist
Sure, but I'm just saying it is being used by people like McCain as a distraction to the real spending problems.

Welcome to politics, this is what both sides do. Both are telling us they are the fiscally responsible party, but they couldn't pass this bill. Pretty well proves they're both blowing smoke up our asses.

What gets me are the "we could be spending that money here" arguments. Just seems to say that the person making the argument only has a problem with the cost because the cost isn't going to their program. I have no doubt that if the money were being spent on Health care, we'd see damn near a universal reverse in people's opinions.

As I said, we need to start saving it everywhere, not saying, "well, this small amount doesn't matter compared to that amount". That's the thinking that lands millions of people in bankruptcy, and it exactly where we're going to end up. How can we seriously expect them to make big cuts if they refuse to make small ones?

1. If we were suddenly spending all of the extra military appropriations money on health care, I doubt people would be complaining that "we could be spending that on bombs instead!" The republicans run on the "increase military spending" thing every election, even if the previous republican spent 8 years increasing military spending, implying that a) they will never say "our military is funded well enough", and b) they're mainly saying it because it sounds good and patriotic.

2. Complaining about "pork barrel" spending really is being penny-wise and pound-foolish. While there are some "bridge to nowhere" type things, a lot of it is actually reasonable (regional development stuff, research projects, etc.), and it really just doesn't add up to much. Railing against pork barrel spending would be fine if they also railed about needing medicare/SS reform along with realistic limits on military spending.

Let's face it, the democrats don't want to drop spending on health care/social security, and the republicans will *always* think military spending needs to be 50% higher every year. Dropping all random regional projects won't make a damn bit of difference without looking at medicaid, medicare, SS and military spending.

It's incredible what liars the Republicans are.

I think the moral of the Bush presidency is that you can use lies to steal an election, but you can't use lies to run a country. Eventually you have to face the truth, no matter how much you hate it.

Remember how we pwned France by calling the cowards? Well they were right about Iraq.

But the Republicans haven'T learned. They will keep lying.

Who decided this was an issue? McCain? Maybe he has the grace of god getting him re-elected, but the other 534 don't.

Statement of Purpose: To establish an earmark moratorium for fiscal year 2009.
Vote Counts: YEAs 29 NAYs 71

Grouped by Home State
Alabama: Sessions (R-AL), Yea Shelby (R-AL), Nay
Alaska: Murkowski (R-AK), Nay Stevens (R-AK), Nay
Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Arkansas: Lincoln (D-AR), Nay Pryor (D-AR), Nay
California: Boxer (D-CA), Nay Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Colorado: Allard (R-CO), Yea Salazar (D-CO), Nay
Connecticut: Dodd (D-CT), Nay Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Delaware: Biden (D-DE), Nay Carper (D-DE), Nay
Florida: Martinez (R-FL), Yea Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Georgia: Chambliss (R-GA), Yea Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Hawaii: Akaka (D-HI), Nay Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Idaho: Craig (R-ID), Nay Crapo (R-ID), Nay
Illinois: Durbin (D-IL), Nay Obama (D-IL), Yea
Indiana: Bayh (D-IN), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Nay
Iowa: Grassley (R-IA), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Kansas: Brownback (R-KS), Nay Roberts (R-KS), Nay
Kentucky: Bunning (R-KY), Nay McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Louisiana: Landrieu (D-LA), Nay Vitter (R-LA), Nay
Maine: Collins (R-ME), Nay Snowe (R-ME), Nay
Maryland: Cardin (D-MD), Nay Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Massachusetts: Kennedy (D-MA), Nay Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Michigan: Levin (D-MI), Nay Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Minnesota: Coleman (R-MN), Nay Klobuchar (D-MN), Nay
Mississippi: Cochran (R-MS), Nay Wicker (R-MS), Nay
Missouri: Bond (R-MO), Nay McCaskill (D-MO), Yea
Montana: Baucus (D-MT), Nay Tester (D-MT), Nay
Nebraska: Hagel (R-NE), Nay Nelson (D-NE), Nay
Nevada: Ensign (R-NV), Yea Reid (D-NV), Nay
New Hampshire: Gregg (R-NH), Nay Sununu (R-NH), Yea
New Jersey: Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
New Mexico: Bingaman (D-NM), Nay Domenici (R-NM), Nay
New York: Clinton (D-NY), Yea Schumer (D-NY), Nay
North Carolina: Burr (R-NC), Yea Dole (R-NC), Yea
North Dakota: Conrad (D-ND), Nay Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Ohio: Brown (D-OH), Nay Voinovich (R-OH), Nay
Oklahoma: Coburn (R-OK), Yea Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Oregon: Smith (R-OR), Nay Wyden (D-OR), Nay
Pennsylvania: Casey (D-PA), Nay Specter (R-PA), Nay
Rhode Island: Reed (D-RI), Nay Whitehouse (D-RI), Nay
South Carolina: DeMint (R-SC), Yea Graham (R-SC), Yea
South Dakota: Johnson (D-SD), Nay Thune (R-SD), Yea
Tennessee: Alexander (R-TN), Yea Corker (R-TN), Yea
Texas: Cornyn (R-TX), Yea Hutchison (R-TX), Nay
Utah: Bennett (R-UT), Nay Hatch (R-UT), Nay
Vermont: Leahy (D-VT), Nay Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Virginia: Warner (R-VA), Nay Webb (D-VA), Nay
Washington: Cantwell (D-WA), Nay Murray (D-WA), Nay
West Virginia: Byrd (D-WV), Nay Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Wisconsin: Feingold (D-WI), Yea Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Wyoming: Barrasso (R-WY), Yea Enzi (R-WY), Yea