Earmarks

TheMercenary · 06-03-2007, 07:20 AM

The Repubs did it, now the Dems... This would be one great way to begin to control spending, control or eliminate Earmarks.

Democrats Hide Pet Projects From Voters

Jun 3, 7:20 AM (ET)

By ANDREW TAYLOR

WASHINGTON (AP) - After promising unprecedented openness regarding Congress' pork barrel practices, House Democrats are moving in the opposite direction as they draw up spending bills for the upcoming budget year.

Democrats are sidestepping rules approved their first day in power in January to clearly identify "earmarks" - lawmakers' requests for specific projects and contracts for their states.

Rather than including specific pet projects, grants and contracts in legislation as it is being written, Democrats are following an order by the House Appropriations Committee chairman to keep the bills free of such earmarks until it is too late for critics to effectively challenge them.

Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., says those requests for dams, community grants and research contracts for favored universities or hospitals will be added to spending measures in the fall. That is when House and Senate negotiators assemble final bills.

Such requests total billions of dollars.

As a result, most lawmakers will not get a chance to oppose specific projects as wasteful or questionable when the spending bills for various agencies get their first votes in the full House in June.

The House-Senate compromise bills due for final action in September cannot be amended and are subject to only one hour of debate, precluding challenges to individual projects.

Obey insists he is reluctantly taking the step because Appropriations Committee members and staff have not had enough time to fully review the 36,000 earmark requests that have flooded the committee.

What Obey is doing runs counter to new rules that Democrats promised would make such spending decisions more open.

xoxoxoBruce · 06-03-2007, 01:35 PM

They have not had enough time to fully review the 36,000 earmark requests, but had enough time to add the money into the bill? Seems to me adding the earmark wouldn't take much time. Now fully considering it's value and appropriateness would take time, but shouldn't that be done before adding it into the bill?

TheMercenary · 06-03-2007, 01:40 PM

My guess is some little ole XY something staffer is whispering in their ear which ones to send off with the bill and which one to stuff. Most probably never even read the Bills they vote for. The whole system is broken.

06-03-2007, 07:20 AM	#1
TheMercenary “Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo” Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Savannah, Georgia Posts: 21,393	Earmarks The Repubs did it, now the Dems... This would be one great way to begin to control spending, control or eliminate Earmarks. Democrats Hide Pet Projects From Voters Jun 3, 7:20 AM (ET) By ANDREW TAYLOR WASHINGTON (AP) - After promising unprecedented openness regarding Congress' pork barrel practices, House Democrats are moving in the opposite direction as they draw up spending bills for the upcoming budget year. Democrats are sidestepping rules approved their first day in power in January to clearly identify "earmarks" - lawmakers' requests for specific projects and contracts for their states. Rather than including specific pet projects, grants and contracts in legislation as it is being written, Democrats are following an order by the House Appropriations Committee chairman to keep the bills free of such earmarks until it is too late for critics to effectively challenge them. Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., says those requests for dams, community grants and research contracts for favored universities or hospitals will be added to spending measures in the fall. That is when House and Senate negotiators assemble final bills. Such requests total billions of dollars. As a result, most lawmakers will not get a chance to oppose specific projects as wasteful or questionable when the spending bills for various agencies get their first votes in the full House in June. The House-Senate compromise bills due for final action in September cannot be amended and are subject to only one hour of debate, precluding challenges to individual projects. Obey insists he is reluctantly taking the step because Appropriations Committee members and staff have not had enough time to fully review the 36,000 earmark requests that have flooded the committee. What Obey is doing runs counter to new rules that Democrats promised would make such spending decisions more open. __________________ Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!

06-03-2007, 01:35 PM	#2
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	They have not had enough time to fully review the 36,000 earmark requests, but had enough time to add the money into the bill? Seems to me adding the earmark wouldn't take much time. Now fully considering it's value and appropriateness would take time, but shouldn't that be done before adding it into the bill? __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

06-03-2007, 01:40 PM	#3
TheMercenary “Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo” Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Savannah, Georgia Posts: 21,393	My guess is some little ole XY something staffer is whispering in their ear which ones to send off with the bill and which one to stuff. Most probably never even read the Bills they vote for. The whole system is broken. __________________ Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)