well, if they didn't promise anything, it's a bit of a stupid question isn't it?

The real question is this: Whoever is in charge next year, will they at least use lube when they fark you?

Subby, they promised - explicitly and implied - a lot of shiat that never materialized.

Did they promise that if they were elected the majority that not a damn thing would be different? If so, they kept that promise.

And you're actually surprised by this? Welcome to America.

While I do applaud the author of this post in being pretty fair-handed in their criticism, I am left thinking the whole story is not being told.

Did Congress not enact transparency measures on earmarks?

What is the total $ vaue of earmarks this year compared with last? compared with the year before that?

All they talk about in this post is a single Defense appropriations bll. I don't think it is appropriate to extrapolate from that.

Skleenar: Did Congress not enact transparency measures on earmarks?

that's what i'm thinking. i don't even care to defend pelosi (for not having the spine to even attempt impeachment), but did they specifically promise to reduce earmarks?

Latest congressional approval rating: 13%

Thank god we have some real leadership going on in DC!

burndtdan: Skleenar: Did Congress not enact transparency measures on earmarks?

that's what i'm thinking. i don't even care to defend pelosi (for not having the spine to even attempt impeachment), but did they specifically promise to reduce earmarks?

According to USA Today just after the 2006 election, Pelosi said "I'd just as soon do away with all (earmarks), but that probably isn't realistic," which is politicianese for "I don't want to get rid of earmarks."

Like everything in Congress, earmarks are bad when used by the opposing party, but completely understandable when used by someone in your own party, so don't expect politicians to remove them any time soon.

Meet the new boss.

(You know the rest of it)

When will Congressional Republicans stop acting like petulant children in blocking every piece of legislation?

"It's them evil LIEBRAL Democrat gays!"

Is Jim Webb gonna have to cap a biatch?

You know what would have made that article awesome? At least one direct quote of a promise to reduce earmarks. What a lazy farking blog.

The dollar value of earmarks under the current congress is at least 10 BILLION dollars less than what it was under previous management, according to Citizens Against Government Waste.

Damn tax and spend libruls! (As opposed to the saintly spend-more and tax-the-poor GOP).

Snarfangel: Like everything in Congress, earmarks are bad when used by the opposing party, but completely understandable when used by someone in your own party, so don't expect politicians to remove them any time soon.

i don't. but i do like the transparency angle, mostly because that allows the people (of any political ideology) to have a better view of what's going on, and use that information to pressure their congressman to do something about it if they disagree.

as for earmarks specifically... even if they are horrible, they amount to such a minuscule percentage of the budget, i'm not too worried about them. calling yourself conservative or responsible for trying to get rid of earmarks is like calling yourself a fireman as you charge a forest fire with a squirt gun.

FTFA: The GOP leadership in both chambers have talked about re-establishing credibility as reformers.

I'll bring this guy out of retirement for this one:

Yes, they are all theives - farking duh.

That's clearly NOT the problem. The problem is that YOU DUMB farkS continue to reelect the same crooks.

/do you even see the disconnect?
//I didn't think so

Oh, please promises to reduce pork-spending are the rotten, debased corpse of a horse each political party pulls out every fraking year to try to win desperation votes. It's been promised in practically every campaign year since the gilded age and will never, ever stop. It's practically the sign a political campaign has jumped the shark nowadays.

bacccc: Yes, they are all theives - farking duh.

That's clearly NOT the problem. The problem is that YOU DUMB farkS continue to reelect the same crooks.

/do you even see the disconnect?
//I didn't think so

Look, we're sorry about Lieberman. If it's any consolation, our House delegation is pretty good.

Skleenar: While I do applaud the author of this post in being pretty fair-handed in their criticism, I am left thinking the whole story is not being told.

Did Congress not enact transparency measures on earmarks?

What is the total $ vaue of earmarks this year compared with last? compared with the year before that?

All they talk about in this post is a single Defense appropriations bll. I don't think it is appropriate to extrapolate from that.

Exactly, they're so surprised millions are being diverted to help communities. Umm, hell-farking-o? Isn't the government supposed to fund community growth? When did this become an inhumane crime to be looked down upon.

Though there are scumbags, don't get me wrong, and of course what they may be reporting as funding towards organizations may just be going into their bank accounts for the upcoming election...

HansensDisease: The dollar value of earmarks under the current congress is at least 10 BILLION dollars less than what it was under previous management, according to Citizens Against Government Waste.

This

Nobody in D.C. is gonna give up earmark spending. that's the grease that keeps the political machines lubricated.

I'm sure both sides will make noises about 'cutting spending' but they'll never actually DO it.

whiskeyinthejar: And you're actually surprised by this? Welcome to AmericaPolitics Everywhere in the Entire Farking World.

ftfy.

Quit your complaining people. You know you all want your entitlements, it is just the other guys "pork" and welfare you are against.

"Can the real Constitution be restored? Probably not.
Too many Americans depend on government money under
programs the Constitution doesn't authorize, and
money talks with an eloquence Shakespeare could only envy.
Ignorant people don't understand The Federalist Papers,
but they understand government checks with their names on them."
Joseph Sobran

Weaver95: Nobody in D.C. is gonna give up earmark spending. that's the grease that keeps the political machines lubricated.

I'm sure both sides will make noises about 'cutting spending' but they'll never actually DO it.

HansensDisease: The dollar value of earmarks under the current congress is at least 10 BILLION dollars less than what it was under previous management, according to Citizens Against Government Waste.

Damn tax and spend libruls! (As opposed to the saintly spend-more and tax-the-poor GOP).

Got a little something on your face there, Weav.

Not all earmarks are pork. Not all pork are earmarks. Trying to conflate the two is ludicrous.

Just to get that out of the way.

Wasn't there recently an article about how the top pork-spenders were republicans who rage the loudest against it?

Pork is good. It makes up less than 2% of the budget, and a lot of state and local programs depend on it. Find something else to cut.

Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

nekom: The real question is this: Whoever is in charge next year, will they at least use lube when they fark you?

It's going to BYOL.

Aexia: HansensDisease: The dollar value of earmarks under the current congress is at least 10 BILLION dollars less than what it was under previous management, according to Citizens Against Government Waste.

This

And given how much the dollar has weakened, it might be even more.

Facts are so difficult to find, requiring much digging and research requiring the full awesome power of today's interconnected network of millions of computers. For example, it took me nearly 47 whole seconds of my precious life to uncover this. In that time, I could have eaten two doritos and taken a sip of mello yellow. Don't thank me, my sacrifice is your gain.



Just remind me, which party was in full control of congress from 2003-2006? I can't seem to recall....

Snowflake Tubbybottom: Latest congressional approval rating: 13%

Thank god we have some real leadership going on in DC!

what was the rating of the republican congress in the spring of 2006?

Also, from the same page, Nov 2007:

According to Senate Democrats, Bush placed 580 earmarks worth $15.6 billion in a recent military and veterans appropriations request, along with "billions" in the energy and water spending bill:

Some presidential earmarks have obvious roots, such as $24 million for the Laura Bush 21st Century Librarian Program. The president earmarked a billion dollars for the Reading First program, which was criticized by government auditors for steering contracts to favored companies. He also sought $8.9 million for the Points of Light foundation, a pet project started by his father, former President George H.W. Bush.

Who knew that presidents were responsible for pork too?

Members of Congress should be given a line-item vote. If they didn't like something in a bill -- earmarks, pork-barrel projects, or anything else that would piss off the voters back home -- they could vote against it. If enough vote against an item, remove it and have another vote on the amended bill. Continue until the bill either passes or fails in its entirety.

Sure, Members of Congress would still trade favors, but they'd be forced to account for each one. The sharp knives pulled out for omnibus spending bills would be especially interesting.

Bacontastesgood: Who knew that presidents were responsible for pork too?

Anyone who was alive when Reagan was in office.

In January, the Senate passed S.1, the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007, which would strengthen internal Senate rules regarding gifts and travel.

The new Democratic Congress now requires that each earmark be fully described and its sponsor identified. Members of Congress who sponsor earmarks must certify that they have no personal financial interest in them. Any private entity that might benefit must be clearly reported. Each of these reforms is now mandatory, in stark contrast to previous practices.

ConservativesBlow: Wasn't there recently an article about how the top pork-spenders were republicans who rage the loudest against it?

Pork is good. It makes up less than 2% of the budget, and a lot of state and local programs depend on it. Find something else to cut.

Quotin' this 'cause it's facts.

ConservativesBlow: Wasn't there recently an article about how the top pork-spenders were republicans who rage the loudest against it?

Pork is good. It makes up less than 2% of the budget, and a lot of state and local programs depend on it. Find something else to cut.

I think the problem is more related to buying influence. If you work for industry X and make a campaign donation to Senator Y, and you obtain Z law or funding, then there is a significant problem.

However, if Congressman X thinks that his constituency irrespective of any monetary influence, and the community will benefit form Project Y, and get Federal funds for it, then it is a better outcome from a policy standpoint.

It is the linkage between money and influence peddling which is so corrosive.

During the 60s and 70's a huge largess of Federal funds were dispersed through Block Grants for community projects. A lot of good came from this type of spending, and we should return to this model rather than burying this type of spending in omnibus packages.

ConservativesBlow: Wasn't there recently an article about how the top pork-spenders were republicans who rage the loudest against it?

Pork is good. It makes up less than 2% of the budget, and a lot of state and local programs depend on it. Find something else to cut.

Why not start there? There are a lot of posts in other threads about following the Constitution. If you read the intent of the framers most pork spending has no Constitutional mandate and it mostly goes for things that, under the 10th Amendment, the states should be funding themselves. It is not as if state and local goverments lack the means to raise revenue to pay for the county road program or a city's "vistors center and history museum."

From there we can go to the so called non-porks spending, if there really is usch a thing. Approxiamtely 50% of the Federal budget lacks a Constitutional mandate. You cut that spending and cut taxes by the same amount an let the states/local governments acess that potential revenue at their level to fund and administer the programs they want. It sure beats sending the money all the way Washington to fund a massive bureacracy and the one size fits all programs they create. Imagine the money saved by having no HUD, HHS, Dept of Education etc. at the Federal Level.

Obdicut: Weaver95: Nobody in D.C. is gonna give up earmark spending. that's the grease that keeps the political machines lubricated.

I'm sure both sides will make noises about 'cutting spending' but they'll never actually DO it.

HansensDisease: The dollar value of earmarks under the current congress is at least 10 BILLION dollars less than what it was under previous management, according to Citizens Against Government Waste.

Damn tax and spend libruls! (As opposed to the saintly spend-more and tax-the-poor GOP).

Got a little something on your face there, Weav.

come and talk to me when pork barrel spending and congressional earmarks are totally and completely eliminated. No congressthing is going to do that. what they do is cut the OTHER guy's funding. not their own. then they make noises about 'reducing spending'.

Like all Democrats, they kept all of the promises they intended to keep.

robbiedo: ConservativesBlow: Wasn't there recently an article about how the top pork-spenders were republicans who rage the loudest against it?

Pork is good. It makes up less than 2% of the budget, and a lot of state and local programs depend on it. Find something else to cut.

I think the problem is more related to buying influence. If you work for industry X and make a campaign donation to Senator Y, and you obtain Z law or funding, then there is a significant problem.

However, if Congressman X thinks that his constituency irrespective of any monetary influence, and the community will benefit form Project Y, and get Federal funds for it, then it is a better outcome from a policy standpoint.

It is the linkage between money and influence peddling which is so corrosive.

During the 60s and 70's a huge largess of Federal funds were dispersed through Block Grants for community projects. A lot of good came from this type of spending, and we should return to this model rather than burying this type of spending in omnibus packages.

Sorry but during the mid 90s (remember the budget battle). COngress tried to go to black grants but democrats called them "cuts" and starving the kids adnClinto vetoed them.

Politicians like controlling the money because it is a source of power. Better to just no send the mney to Washington in the first place. Let state and local governments raise the revenue they need.

vote bob barr

bacccc: Yes, they are all theives - farking duh.

That's clearly NOT the problem. The problem is that YOU DUMB farkS continue to reelect the same crooks.

/do you even see the disconnect?
//I didn't think so

Or murders. Hello Ted Kennedy.

robbiedo: It is the linkage between money and influence peddling which is so corrosive.

Anyone curious about this can have a look at usaspending.gov ^ and see what money is going where - pull out the raw data via the API and massage it yourself if you like.

Check out who was on board the enabling legislation from day one. ^ Our current presidential candidates believe you should know where the money goes - this is a good thing.

I can't help but believe that deals will always get made, but I'm more comfortable knowing that anybody can peek into the back room at any time.

It's been a month since I've been on Fark, and I missed you guys!
Group hug!
Yes this is completely irrelevant.
//back to the corner
/Slashies!

too bad the biggest earmarks are kept off budget. they have what they call supplementals. and they are for those personal constituents of GW and Dick. Halliburton,Blackwater,Big Oil and the rest of the war profiteers.

There has been at least two bills cutting back on earmarks. Just like there have been bills cutting back on oil subsidies.

Will the two ever go away under either side? No.
Is it a HELL of a lot better than it was? Yes.

ummmmmm so?

They lied in the most transparent and obvious way a politician can lie and they did so for the most obvious of reasons.

Let Obama take office and in 2010. the Pubs will be promising to eliminate all the wasteful spending that a totally Dem govt is doing if you just elect them. (hint: they will be lying too)

I actually was OK with the Dems having a majority in congress the past 2 years. Its a good check against the executive branch to have a hostile legislative branch. I hope if we do elect Obama that the Pubs regain a small majority in Congress by 2010 as well

MBrady: Or murders. Hello Ted Kennedy.

Yeah, yeah. I know the talking points. Front to back.

Here's the thing. If we're going to "go there", as the Clintonistas used to say, what do we do about the First Lady?

Kennedy drove drunk. He got a woman killed. He didn't get punished for it - other than the fact that he would have probably ran away with the Democratic nomination over Carter because of it, and might very well have been President.

Is this fair? No. Not being president is better than being behind bars.

But it also has nothing to do with the fundamental fact that Republicans have become ten times the corrupt wastrels that Democrats ever were. And the only way you can pretend Democrats are worse is by comparing them against an impossible ideal, and pretending to yourself "they're both the same", so you can pick the GOP for some other reason. I see that argument in all the posts here.

It's called "Rationalization" in psychology, and it's easy to fall into if loyalty to a brand name trumps any sort of actual logic. It may be fine for you. But for me, I've opened my eyes.

Republicans: I'm done with them.