I'm very disappointed in the Dems and earmarks! Look here!

[napi21]

http://www.taxpayer.net/budget/fy08appropschart.html

I watched a 30 min. discussion on earmarks on Bill Moyers Journal today. The SAD thing is, the damn Dems have more earmarks than the Pubs do! I'm not saying that some of these projects don't have merit, but IMO we just don't have the $$ now to do any of them!

It's quite an interesting site with a lot of info!

[smtpgirl]

1. Sure looks like Idaho is receiving alot of earmark $

ID projected population in 2010:

2010 1,517,291

MD projected population in 2010:

2010 5,904,970

ID population in 2000:

2000 1,293,953

MD population in 2000:

2000 5,296,486

Why do they need all of that $??????

[mahina]

2. The way we do things in Washington needs to change.

I don't view it as a partisan issue. Whoever is in power will have more earmarks, and the numbers escalated geometrically during Republican rule. As you know, because you watched the show.

[napi21]

6. Yes they dramatically increased during Pub rule, but they haven't

gone DOWN in 2007! I look at this the same as someone loving their children and wanting to give them everything they ask for, but are faced with a financial situation where they HAVE to say NO, NOT NOW!

[divinecommands]

3. Politics is a racket...

And politicians are pigs. Almost all of 'em.

Working for a non-profit that tracks earmarks has made me cynical, but how could it not? Under the banner of a program aimed at preserving historical treasures of truly national significance, I discovered that about half the money had been earmarked for projects in the districts of about 16 people on the appropriations committee.

16 appropriators. Half the money. For projects of dubious national significance: local court houses, a public library, and in one memorable case, an old bathroom.

No oversight. No accountability. A pox on them all.

[Faux pas]

4. Interesting and eye opening info, thanks napi21! n/t

[spanone]

5. politics seems to be the game of 'least despicable'.

[TahitiNut]

7. Campaign funding is an investment ... and it MUST yield a return.

It was once called the "political spoils system."

[sandnsea]

8. Yeah, Democrats are the Committee Heads

Consequently their names will be on more things.

You say we can't afford ANY of it?? No Corps projects in New Orleans? No dredging our ports and jetties?

http://www.taxpayer.net/TCS/PressReleases/2007/07-12sew.html

Hyperbole and hysteria doesn't fix our problems.

[napi21]

9. IMO things like the Corps projects in NO should be a separate bill.

Why should it be burried in another bill as an earmark? I think it's the secrecy that bothers me more than the expense!

[sandnsea]

12. An earmark IS like a bill in a bill

If we had 10,000 separate bills, they'd be shuffled through just like the earmarks are. The reason we have earmarks is so that the money actually goes where Congress intended. These groups that lump everything together are just as harmful as the ones lobbying for the earmarks. Do you know whether your taxpayer group is registered as a lobbyist or not?

[RB TexLa]

10. That is the job of a representative

[KharmaTrain]

11. They Started With Trading Horses...

When it comes to things like earmarks, it's easy to get outraged when you hear large numbers and the excesses of the process, but this is how the "sausage" in Washington is made. It can mean the fixing of that bridge down the road or the renovation or addition at the high school or local college...many little things that do benefit people and are traded back and forth among congresscritters to get bills passed.

The problem becomes when these earmarks are secret or submitted AFTER a bill has pass (Repugnicans did that) or where there's criminal coruption involved (we're looking at you Jerry Lewis & Don Young...). It's when an earmark is inserted for a defense approporiation for a company in Oklahoma from a congresscritter from Ohio...or buying and selling of those earmarks...like playing a political futures market.

The system definitely needs revision...but so does so much in our government. Al Gore attempted to address these problems during the Clinton years and was ridiculed for it (besides not standing a chance with a highly partisan House).

I'd like to see a public list of the earmarks...who asked for them and for what. I tend to think the ones the Democrats are seeking are far more in volume, but far less in cost per earmark.