Ya don't say...

Nowhere is so lovely this time of year. It's a real shame that my constituents can't visit there for lack of a bridge.

Hmmm that's about when Republicans took over. Why am I not surprised.

At least when Democrats had power they made it so none of them could be anonymous anymore and the Republicans attacked them for that. Republicans do the "that's not good enough!!" and then just lie about what they are doing. Just like they do with the deficits and the economy.

Why are congresspeople slipping earmites into legislation?

But if I didn't put earmarks into bills, Libby McSocialist/Fascist McNoTax would get all of what THEY wanted! I'm just looking out for the good, hard-working folks of my district, who have made it clear that studying the effects of dust mite farts on lawnmower sales is a top priority.

// the RONPAUL defense

Dr Dreidel: But if I didn't put earmarks into bills, Libby McSocialist/Fascist McNoTax would get all of what THEY wanted! I'm just looking out for the good, hard-working folks of my district, who have made it clear that studying the effects of dust mite farts on lawnmower sales is a top priority.

// the RONPAUL defense

Actually the Ron Paul defense was that the fight over earmarks is a shame, it accounts for something like 2% of the budget, and it is money that has ALREADY been budgetted, so not using them has zero effect on total government expenses. It just means some executive department will decide what to do with the money instead of congress.

Corvus: Hmmm that's about when Republicans took over. Why am I not surprised.

At least when Democrats had power they made it so none of them could be anonymous anymore and the Republicans attacked them for that. Republicans do the "that's not good enough!!" and then just lie about what they are doing. Just like they do with the deficits and the economy.

...and just like they did with all the other "rules" they instituted/changed when they took control of the House. They all got ignored the second they conflicted with Republican short-term political goals. For Republicans, rules and laws are merely things they use to control other people. For themselves, they don't apply and can be discarded the second they become inconvenient.

The sad thing is, they get away with it most of the time. Their base isn't interested in actually knowing the truth and holding them accountable, and their partisan media doesn't report on it. So because the voters on their side of the aisle have been conditioned to be such masters of doublethink and projection, we have a situation where basically the GOP gets to do whatever they want without serious consequences. And they keep winning, disproportionate to their actual support, because their "no rules" mentality means that they are willing to abuse and shiat on all our democratic institutions in order to consolidate their power. Because they don't believe in following the rule of law, they can more capably game the system to their advantage. See: their attacks on voting; the attempted Arizona redistricting commission coup d'etat, the debt ceiling "crisis", etc.

EWreckedSean:
Actually the Ron Paul defense was that the fight over earmarks is a shame, it accounts for something like 2% of the budget, and it is money that has ALREADY been budgetted, so not using them has zero effect on total government expenses. It just means some executive department will decide what to do with the money instead of congress.

I actually agree with him on that. The whole "earmarks" battle cry WAS a sham, and a stupid one at that. Republicans do that kind of thing ALL THE TIME, though. They love to talk big about cutting some nearly meaningless small expenditure (or worse, a very useful small expenditure, as long as it doesn't have a big political constituency behind it) so that they can talk about how they are spending cutters without actually having to take any serious political risk. They know that most Republican voters will take the bait hook, line, and sinker, without actually confronting the reality of where money gets spent and how. It makes a lot more sense once you realize that Republicans are just purely about power for power's sake. They don't actually care about any policy whatsoever.

As long as they don't put earworms into recent legislation. Like a blister in the sun

Also, complaining about earmarks are a great way to sound like you're a deficit hawk without actually being a deficit hawk.

Mnemia: They love to talk big about cutting some nearly meaningless small expenditure (or worse, a very useful small expenditure, as long as it doesn't have a big political constituency behind it) so that they can talk about how they are spending cutters without actually having to take any serious political risk

That was their big shtick with foreign aid in the 90s... It counts for less than .5 percent of yearly spending but after the Republicans made a huge deal out of it, polling showed Americans thought it was a HUGE chunk of the budget, upwards of 20 or 30 percent.

Earmarks are a tiny percentage of the budget anyway. The whole debate about them is retarded when you look at the big picture.

Remember how they said things would be more transparent?

How many backroom budget plans have the Republicans created. I believe the count is ALL OF THEM.

Remember when Obama went to the press to talk about the budget process and was attacked by Republicans for doing so. I love how the press and the GOP don't see these back room budget deals as back room deals. I guess they are only "back room" deals if Republicans are not demanding them.

Fart_Machine: Earmarks are a tiny percentage of the budget anyway. The whole debate about them is retarded when you look at the big picture.

But the Republicans made a huge deal about them. Said the good things the Democrats did like making them all non-anonymous was "not good enough" and then made things worse.

It's like the same thing they do about the budget.

Fart_Machine: Earmarks are a tiny percentage of the budget anyway. The whole debate about them is retarded when you look at the big picture.

Name something specific that is a large portion of the budget.

EWreckedSean: Dr Dreidel: But if I didn't put earmarks into bills, Libby McSocialist/Fascist McNoTax would get all of what THEY wanted! I'm just looking out for the good, hard-working folks of my district, who have made it clear that studying the effects of dust mite farts on lawnmower sales is a top priority.

// the RONPAUL defense

Actually the Ron Paul defense was that the fight over earmarks is a shame, it accounts for something like 2% of the budget, and it is money that has ALREADY been budgetted, so not using them has zero effect on total government expenses. It just means some executive department will decide what to do with the money instead of congress.

The joke's not funny if you explain it. What should I have called it? The Fiscal Conservatives' Defense? That's not as funny.

// plus, I thought that deflection was a rationale used by RP for inserting his own earmarks

CapnBlues: sprawl15: Fart_Machine: Earmarks are a tiny percentage of the budget anyway. The whole debate about them is retarded when you look at the big picture.

Name something specific that is a large portion of the budget.

Defense?
Medicare?

missingthepoint.jpg

You don't cut "defense spending", you cut specific parts of the category of defense spending. You cut the useless second F-35 engine, for example. Same with Medicare. You don't cut "medicare", you close the donut hole.

sprawl15: You don't cut "medicare", you close the donut hole.

That would increase Medicare costs.

BSABSVR: sprawl15: You don't cut "medicare", you close the donut hole.

That would increase Medicare costs.

Not if you just stop giving drugs to old people.

sprawl15:

Not if you just stop giving drugs to old people.

Good point. Also, probably unavoidable given our current economic situation. Sorry bluehairs, but America is broke and we have to devote our resources to people of working and breeding age. The good news is, we can finish you off with an Inuit style send off or a Vikingesque pyre.

sprawl15: Fart_Machine: Earmarks are a tiny percentage of the budget anyway. The whole debate about them is retarded when you look at the big picture.

Name something specific that is a large portion of the budget.

Defense. Medicare. Social Security. Medicaid... I think that accounts for roughly 60% of our 2012 budget.

Only one of those falls under discretionary spending though.

BeesNuts: sprawl15: Fart_Machine: Earmarks are a tiny percentage of the budget anyway. The whole debate about them is retarded when you look at the big picture.

Name something specific that is a large portion of the budget.

Defense. Medicare. Social Security. Medicaid... I think that accounts for roughly 60% of our 2012 budget.

Only one of those falls under discretionary spending though.

Saw your clarification.

No single specific project accounts for a large chunk of our spending. Some departments probably spend more than they need to. And there are plenty of projects we don't necessarily have any interest in pursuing any longer. And there's plenty of room for pruning in our Medicare/Medicaid programs.

I really like this website. (new window) It demonstrates the "no easy answer" situation we're in quite well.

Congressmen and congresswomen aren't stupid. To their contituents, it's the earmarks that go to "other districts" that's the problem.

It's like how Congress always has low approval numbers, but some of them get re-elected 3, 4, or 5 times. Many voters think their guy is okay, but everyone else sucks.

This implies that the Republican House has managed to pass any legislation.

CravenMorehead: This implies that the Republican House has managed to pass any legislation.

They have passed hundreds of bills....that are waiting for the Senate to vote on.

EWreckedSean: CravenMorehead: This implies that the Republican House has managed to pass any legislation.

They have passed hundreds of bills....that are waiting for the Senate to vote on.


I think you're thinking of the previous house that had a Democratic majority.

EWreckedSean: CravenMorehead: This implies that the Republican House has managed to pass any legislation.

They have passed hundreds of bills....that are waiting for the Senate to vote on.

Most of which are bullshiat political games (symbolic abortion bans, insanely loony budget proposals that turn Medicare into a coupon program, repeal of the popular portions of the Affordable Care Act, etc) rather than serious policy proposals. And virtually none of them show any sort of spirit of compromise with the Democratic majority in the Senate or the Democratic president. Republicans in the House would rather just say "it's my way or the highway", and then whine when the other side doesn't just give them whatever they want. This proves beyond all shadow of a doubt that Republicans care more about political grandstanding than the interests of the country.