Regular commenter pbj took umbrage with me at #21 at this thread for not doing more with the series of earmark stories upon which the Seattle Times has spent a couple barrels of ink (latest article here).
I'll confess, the issue bores me. Earmarks were an issue when Republicans ran against the long-standing Democratic majority in Congress in 1994. Likewise, the Republican Congress developed its own reputation on the matter leading up to 2006. Bluntly, it's an institutional issue. There is some truth to the statements that there are three parties in Congress: Republicans, Democrats, and Appropriators.
On one hand, earmarks are a defining issue that symbolically speaks to how our federal government spends money. On the other, the total fiscal impact in the context of the federal budget pales in comparison to the long-term financial issues before Congress - particularly Social Security and Medicare. That and the fact Members of Congress almost never go down to defeat because of earmarks alone.
Try as I might, I just don't find myself getting too worked up about the issue despite the merits of the argument (and the fact I salute those that fight against them). But if you all have something to add, this thread is yours.
Posted by Eric Earling at December 20, 2007 07:39 AM | Email ThisThank you for posting this thread. Maybe it is just me but I find the issue of bribes (uh er earmarks...gotta remember that PC term. I always call the "undocumented immagrants" illegal invaders too!) to be more important than The Hobbit or Christmas Songs.
And I would think that if you were in a concilaiatory mood to say something nice to the liberal biased MSM that pointing out the Times Story on Bribes/Earmarks would be a much better place than the tossing one to contumelious liberal columnist Joel Connelly. For once the liberal MSM didn't spike a story because it made a Democrat look bad.
$4.5 million for a boat the military didn't want and couldn't use, millions for T-Shirts that were supposed to be fire proof for Marines yet turned out to melt to their bodies creating horribly disfiguring burns. That concerns me greatly. All those pro-taxers who always ask "where would YOU cut the budget??" as if there was no waste at all. I say HERE HERE HERE!
What is not so "perennial" in this story is that the light of day is starting to be shone into the dark corners of this process because of recent rule changes the information on these are becoming public knowledge.
Posted by: pbj on December 20, 2007 08:34 AMThere is a real issue with supporting working people of this country and addressing their needs of health care, education, and a strong economy that creates jobs. Back in the day, the dems used to be the party of working people. Now, both parties are pigs at the pork party. I understand that Peolosi spent thousands for flowers and had a personal make-up assistant for the Inagurial ball. Sounds dem to me. Now, both parties require people to pay to play and when one is playing with the levels of cash out there, well you grease my pork, I'll grease yours. The budget is out of control, even for this former dem. Unless, something is done about this, I don't know what. We will get our own Hugo Chavez in the future. Meanwhile, we vote for the crooks.
Posted by: WVH on December 20, 2007 09:03 AMThere is a real problem with earmarks in not only to they waste money, but they often redirect money that is needed for important needs to non-needed items. I remember back 10 or so years ago, when the defense dollars were being cut back due to the Cold War ending, the Navy needed money for repairs and maintenance, yet this money got redirected to build a set of ships the Navy didn't want. Why, you may ask? It was because the new shipbuilding would take place in Pascagoula, MS, whereas the repair/maintenance would be directed to Puget Sound, Norfolk, and/or San Diego. Mississippi was home to Trent Lott, Senate Majority Leader. So here was a case where the earmarks took money away from areas the Navy needed to build ships it didn't need all to please the Senate Majority Leader's constituents.
This isn't small chump change as some would like to make it out to be.
Posted by: tc on December 20, 2007 09:51 AMNobody would invest in Tacoma, to build an outhouse, unless the Federal, State and City Governments were not picking up part of the tab or giving contractors 10 year 10% property tax exemptions. That is the only way a contractor can make a profit in Tacoma and still be able to contribute to their favorite politicians!!!
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on December 20, 2007 11:15 AMhttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB119811356177641129.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks
It discusses how earmarks don't have legal standing and the president can ask agencies to ignore the requests as to where the money gets spent. It still gets spent, but hopefully on more worthy things, and if this works, it takes away the incentive to write the earmark in the first place.
Link may be a pay link, I'm a subscriber but can't tell which ones are free and which aren't
Posted by: Ian on December 20, 2007 11:59 AMHe raised $6 million in ONE DAY on 12/16.
It is the most money raised in a single day by any candidate IN HISTORY.
He's over $18.5 million for this quarter alone. Only his and Huckabee's poll numbers are rising.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on December 20, 2007 06:01 PM(I used to think that former dopers and lowlifes who'd "found Jesus" in some wierd cult and desired to convert everyone else were insufferable in their earnestness, but that was before the Paultards came along.)
Unfortunately, it's all about money, and Ron Paul is beating Huckabee and McCain by that measure. I think Ron Paul is in third place, and rising.
Raoul, I will refrain from calling you names, because I value civil discourse. I thought you conservatives were better than that.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on December 20, 2007 08:56 PM1. 'Unfortunately, it's all about money, and Ron Paul is beating Huckabee and McCain by that measure. I think Ron Paul is in third place, and rising"
Let me stop researching candidates this instant. I cast my vote for Bloomberg, and yes he can buy my vote since it is all about money. What ever happened to principled discourse?
Didn't realize there were that many Nazis out there.
2. "Raoul, I will refrain from calling you names, because I value civil discourse. I thought you conservatives were better than that."
Glad that there is an admission that neither Bruce G. nor Paul are conservative. Waiting for the admission that neither one is republican.
3. Bruce G. said: "Best candidate if you think earmarks have gotten out of hand: Ron Paul."
Now here are the facts on Paul and earmarks:
"Roth says people in Texas appreciate Paul's straightforwardness and lack of political spin. He adds that Paul proposed more earmarks than any other member of the Houston-area delegation -- 65 in all, with one financing the renovation of a shuttered theater. Paul's backing for earmarks stands in contrast to his campaign speeches against government funding for a variety of programs. "He does do a lot of the constituent services, even as he talks about low government," Roth says."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17345258
Dude, if he is the best candidate on earmarks, this country is truly sunk.
Why must you turn every single damn thread into a Ron Paul thread???? You only alienate people.
Posted by: pbj on December 21, 2007 09:45 AMI think your real objection is that you merely disagree with me, and resent the airing of my views. You are afraid they are catching. In this, you would be right. Ron Paul has great momentum right now.
You are already alienated. No additional harm done! :)
Raoul @13: Yes, Ron Paul has proposed about 65 earmarks for projects in his district. Only about 10 actually passed, and he voted for NONE of the final bills. He may have known they would pass anyway.
I think of it this way: when you can take a legal deduction on your income taxes, you do it, right? You do it even if it is a special interest subsidy, such as the mortgage interest deduction. You do it because the government is seizing your money, and you want to keep as much of it as you can. You don't care that you represent a special interest, because not everyone can take this special deduction.
Same with social security. There are many principled libertarians who refuse to deposit any of their social security checks, because to do so would be to buy in to the system, to give it their moral stamp of approval. They refuse these checks even though they have paid in to the system for years. I respect this perspective, but I also see the other side: many libertarians reason that the government has stolen their money and they want to get at least some of it back. So they accept the social security checks, and work in public to reform or eliminate the social security system they benefit from.
Ron Paul's earmarks can be viewed in this way. Some of his constituents wanted some of their money back from the federal government, and Ron Paul found a way to give it back to them. But because he never voted for any of the final bills, he has been working to change the system without breaking it's rules. He is defending the process outlined in the Constitution. He is voting to eliminate a system that he benefits from. He is voting against bills that contain earmarks for his own constituents.
What would you have done in his situation, Raoul?
And isn't it worse to actually have voted for the final, bloated spending bills? Many of the other Republican primary candidates voted for these same bills, and worse yet, GW Bush signed each and every one without even a veto threat!
Ron Paul is still the most fiscally conservative of the lot.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on December 23, 2007 11:49 PMNote that Ron Paul voted against a medal for Rosa Parks in this discussion from Meet the Press:
"Paul Defends Asking for Special Projects
Dec 23, 3:12 PM (ET)
By JENNIFER C. KERR
WASHINGTON (AP) - Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul on Sunday defended his efforts in Congress to bring home money to his Texas district, despite his long-held aversion to big government and congressional votes to reign in federal spending.
"I've never voted for an earmark in my life," the Texas congressman said under questioning on NBC's "Meet the Press" about reports that he has requested hundreds of millions of dollars for special projects in his home district.
"I put them in because I represent people who are asking for some of their money back," said Paul, who likened it to taking a tax credit. "I'm against the tax system, but I take all my tax credits. I want to get their money back for the people."
The 10-term congressman and longshot candidate for the Republican presidential nomination added that although he has requested special projects known as earmarks, he ultimately ends up voting against them in the House. Paul is known in Congress as "Dr. No" for his votes against some types of government spending, including a medal for Pope John Paul II and civil rights leader Rosa Parks because of the cost to taxpayers.
For his home state, however, Paul has sought money for water projects, a nursing program, to expand a hospital cancer center and to promote Texas shrimp...."
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071223/D8TNC3EG0.html
Let's see pork for his district is OK, honoring a great Pope and great civil rights leader, not OK.
Posted by: WVH on December 24, 2007 11:30 AM