Why is the Dem. leadership against suspending earmarks for 1 year?

[napi21]

I've looked at a lot of earmarks, and although MOST of them are for good purposes, it still comes down to "We can't afford them right now"! Most of them are not for "a multimillion $ bridge to nowhere", but for sbhool computers, or desperately needed road improvements and such.

As I understand it, as long as an issue is debated and receives enough votes, the money gets set aside for the program, and it's not consider an earmark. Yes, it's harder to do than just adding an earmark to a bill, but it can be done.

Right now, for a lot of reasons, the US Treasury doesn't HAVE EXTRA MONEY! I heard on several shows last night that the bill that would suspend any earmarks for 1 year probably wouldn't pass because the Dem leadership doesn't believe it doing that. WHY?

[MADem]

1. Because NOW, at long last, they have the majority and THEY can decide where the pork goes

They aren't chewing on the pig's snout and hind hoof anymore--they get first pick of the JUCIEST bits, and it is the GOP who have to wait at the back of the line.

[napi21]

4. Well I think they're WRONG! There are a lot of things I need or want

in my home too, but because of circumstances beyond my control, I CAN'T AFFORD THEM!

It was NICE that a small twon in Ga. was able to add a bike lane along one of the Hwys BECAUSE of Federal Money, but it wasn't ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY! It could have waited a year or two.

Just because the Dems are the "first pigs in line now" doesn't make it RIGHT for them to act like PIGS at all! GRRRR...

[Winterblues]

14. When you decide how to spend your money do you ever "earmark"

any for that certain project or special night out or ????This is no different. It is what Congress persons are supposed to do. It is their job and exactly what they are elected to do. They are in charge of spending the nation's money and they are elected to "earmark" some of that money for their constituents. Most of it goes to very good causes but some is just a blatant waste. "Earmarks" in themselvwes are not bad but the justification process is lacking..

[MADem]

18. Well, what they're doing is grabbing "their share" while they can.

Where you stand depends on where you sit. And that's just the truth.

If you are unemployed, and your congressman and senator manage to swing an appropriation by way of the earmark system that brings a business to YOUR town, and YOU are hired, and YOU can pay your bills, and YOU have health care for your family, why, that pork is just swell.

If you have a talented child but cannot afford music lessons, athletic programs, after-school enrichment or what-have-you, and an earmark brings them to your town, why, that's just WONDERFUL--it's "for the children...for their FUTURE!!!"

It's always the way--pork for "others" is bad. Pork for "us" is money well spent, an INVESTMENT in the local economy!!!

There are exceptions that everyone does a :wtf: about, like the Bridge to Nowhere....but many appropriations do benefit local economies.

[ThomWV]

2. Why in hell would they? There is nothing illegal about earmarks. On the other hand ...

Someone might want to look at the Administration and the 'reprogramming' of funds for an appropriated use to use at the whim of the Executive for whatever purpose he likes.

[groovedaddy]

3. Apparently, the money brought back to districts through these earmarks

is what makes these congress critters useful. If the bacon isn't brought home, they fear, the constituents will begin asking what use their particular congress critter is. I'm not sure I buy that line of reasoning but I'm certain this is the driving force behind this reasoning.
I would like to see polling done that proves that it matters to voters.

[Donnachaidh]

5. ain't THAT the truth!

Tom Price, the eedjit from my area, put through an earmark for 6.8 MILLION for improvements on a heavily traveled street in the WEALTHIEST area here. Dunno how that money is going to be spent, because every square inch of that road has been *done and completed* over the last 5 years. It's so obvious that the money could be used elsewhere -- but it's going into the richest area of his district - AGAIN.

[groovedaddy]

6. NOW aired on piece on earmarks a few weeks back - very interesting stuff

One segment focused on night vision scopes or something like them, made for the military by a company in Washington State. The dem congress woman from that district has gotten millions earmarked for them. The problem is that the military won't use the equipment because they don't work. Another company has worked out the kinks and tests showed the military prefering the newer model. Still, the congress critter got another ear mark for the same junk. The company getting ear marks has made contributions to her campaign. When it was pointed out that the military doesn't really want this equipment, the critter said the main reason for the ear mark was for the jobs it generated...so I guess whether the shit works or not doesn't really matter as long as someone is getting a pay check!

[spanone]

7. why weren't the republicans against earmarks for all the years they ruled congress?

[napi21]

8. Because they ARE pigs! That's NOT the issue though. The Dems

PROMISED a new better way to run Congress! They promised to be completely transparent in what they did. I guess I was an idiot for thinking that was possible!

[enfield collector]

9. I guess Nancy wasn't really serious about draining the swamp. n/t

[groovedaddy]

11. I've noticed that the Dems elected in '06 vote differently then many

of the Dems who were already there. Clearly, the entrenched folks don't want to rock the status-quo boat. We need more Dems like those elected in '06.

[flor de jasmim]

10. Maybe not to give McCain a victory?

It's just a thought, but getting bipartisan support on a bill would give McCain a boost at this moment, bring back a little of the "maverick" luster...

[JackRiddler]

12. Does it occur to you that "earmarks" is a distorted way of looking at it?

There is a chaotic set of subsidies dispensed by individual congress critters to their own districts and clients supposedly taking up a hundred billion dollars, a great deal of which probably has a decent economic function or a genuine humanitarian one. And a lot of it is a waste and corrupt, but who's going to sort it out earmark by earmark?

Meanwhile, the federal deficit is aiming for the half-trillion range as usual.

There are two planet-sized total sinkholes eating up about 3/4 of the federal budget (which does not in an honest accounting and should not include the insurance schemes financed on separate charges that are actually in surplus and used to cover the deficit, i.e. social security).

The two sinkholes are war and interest. Under war, I include the "regular" "defense" budget, and all its adjuncts disguised as NASA or the Energy Department or as "extraordinary" expenditure for the Iraq rape. This resource and tax eating machine supposedly maintains an (increasingly theoretical) capacity to bomb and otherwise fuck up anyplace, anytime, on behalf of whatever is declared to be the "American" or "humanitarian" interest at that moment by the executive. And it's the reason for the deficit, and for the debt as well.

So, why aren't you asking why Democrats (and all politicians) aren't calling for a cut in "defense" spending?

Maybe you need to stop relying on television for policy analysis.

[napi21]

13. Some politicians ARE aiming at the defense budget, especially

at $$ paid for hired mercinaries like KBR & Blackwater. We are spending 4 & 5 times more for those guys compared to what we pay our military personnel, and THAT'S just dumb! However the reason I mentioned earmarks is because many of them are "optional expenses" and can be postponed or not done at all. If they are so important that they should be done NOW, there's no reason why they couldn't stand up to debate & a vote!

[JackRiddler]

15. We agree on that.

Everything should be subject to its own vote.

Except that's a biiiiiig budget, and the way pork works, everyone will find reason to be for others' so they can get their own.

A real trimming offensive should start with the biggest areas of wasted expenditure. I can't see any logical universe where the war isn't the first item. Earmarks related to "defense," then, rather than the vague "earmarks" (which is big suddenly largely as an attempt to shift blame for the deficit from the "war on terror" and on Iraq to Congressional Democrats).

[OmahaBlueDog]

16. Think "I'll start my diet and exercise program...tomorrow"

Right now, the cheesecake looks too damn good!

Same logic, just with money handed out to constituents.

[napi21]

17. Good analagy. Now somebody has to tell the congress critters, that

if they don't "start their diet NOW, they and WE are going to DIE"! THAT would work for the average dieter, and it would work for Congress too!