So Much For That, Then
"Blessed Are Those Who Expect Nothing, For They Shall Not Be Disappointed"--Dan McLaughlin
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in Democrats | Featured Stories — Comments (4) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Many will recall a story that came out fairly recently stating that the incoming Congressional majority intended to get rid of all earmarks.
It sounded too good to be true, and yet many of us hoped otherwise.
Those hopes were for naught (read on):
But the scope of the declared moratorium may be far more limited than it sounds. For one thing, the Democrats have not said they will delete financing for earmarks that lawmakers included in spending bills for the 2006 fiscal year and hoped to renew for 2007, a category that may include the majority of earmarks.
Instead, what the Democrats will omit is the long explanations usually appended to each spending bill to instruct federal agencies how to spend the money. Their resolution will include only total numbers for each agency, without the instructions.
The result will make it hard for members of Congress to ensure passage of a first-time earmark like the $500,000 to help expand the Peoria zoo that was inserted into a spending bill by Representative Ray LaHood, Republican of Illinois. Mr. LaHood and other Republicans have complained most loudly about the plan, accusing Democrats of ignoring local needs.
But many if not most earmarks are recurring items, like money for a university research program or a public works project that Congressional sponsors insert each year. No Democrats have suggested any plan to cut or redirect that money.
Executive agencies know from past experience where the appropriations committees want that money to go. They have no incentive to cross the lawmakers who will be financing their future operations. And it can be costly to scrap a research or public works project for one year only to start it up again when Congress renews its instructions.
"The agencies are not likely to cross their appropriations committee masters just for this one-off year," said Steve Ellis, a spokesman for Taxpayers for Common Sense, which tracks earmarks. "The spots on the dice have rubbed off, but they know exactly where they are."
So, earmarks will remain amongst us. The incoming majority will do little--at best--to get rid of them.
Just thought we ought to clear that up.
« Corrupt Democrat Watch, July 10 Edition, Part One — Comments (20) | "It is good to have friends..." — Comments (5) »
So Much For That, Then 4 Comments (0 topical, 4 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
1. Divided government ONLY controls spending when the leadership in the HOUSE is 110% committed to controlling spending. Nobody else matters. We had divided government under Nixon and Ford, they spent like drunken sailors. The seeds of the SS problems were indexing SS payments to inflation, happened under Nixon. Reagan couldn't control the Congress, he tried and lost. Spending didn't slow down under Bush41 and it only slowed a little after 1994 when Newt was Speaker. When he went away, the dam broke and water's been rising ever since.
2. Bipartisan reforms are a joke. That only means that everybody gets a bigger piece of a much bigger pie so they won't fight about it. The legislators will have figured ways around any "reforms" before the ink is dry on the bill. Every "reform" measure ever passed by Congress increases the total amount of money spent and the level of corruption.
3. ALL spending by Congress invites corruption. And you are 100% wrong about what a Congressman thinks his/her job is. They KNOW their job is to bring home federal money. Period. If you think differently, call your Congressman and tell him/her to cut all spending for your district/state. See how far you get.
4. With respect to Republican losing all of their earmarks and Democrats keeping theirs, I'm good with that. The worthless fools deserve to be punished.
5. Democrats and the trappings of power. Please. This isn't a matter of "getting used to", it's a matter of "getting back to". They have just regained the power that is rightfully theirs. There won't be a committee chair in either house of Congress who wasn't a committee chair before 1994. They know how the game works, they invented it.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
"I'm shocked to learn there is gambling going on here." Your winnings, sir.
The lead Democrats in the "New improved Congress of 2007" are basically the same people who were the lead Democrats in the "new improved Congress of 1980, 1982, 1984, 1986, 1988, 1990, 1992." And they haven't gotten better with age.
John
--------
Ethnic humor is part of human nature. The Dutch tell Belgian jokes. The Belgians tell French jokes. The French tell English jokes. The English tell Irish jokes. The Irish tell Irish jokes.
that is they ain't going anywhere, least of all to elimination.
Nancy P has already shown her colors on corruption and the idea that of all people Senator Byrd would restrict earmarks in the senate has the validity of talking horses. The guy has more bridges named after him then a camel has fleas.
The Times, God bless them, made sure the only two people quoted were republicans, as defending earmarks, and of course republicans have "complained most loudly". A gesture towards impartiality in the news.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
Sometimes divided-government is best for keeping spending under control, but I think what will end up happening is only the Republican earmarks will be cancelled, and the Democrats will get their earmarks. All in all, business as usual.
I hope some bipartisan reforms, such as greater transperancy for who asks for what, are enacted for this type of spending .
Pork Barrel spending attracts an enormous amount of corruption. A congressional representative's job is not to bring home as much federal dollars as possible to their district.
I'm betting though once the Democrats get a taste of the trappings of power, they'll have second thoughts about giving up this powerful fundraising tool.
"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich. "
William F. Buckley, Jr.