Earmarks
| Fri Sep. 12, 2008 11:17 AM PDT
EARMARKS....So now John McCain is flatly saying that Sarah Palin has never requested an earmark? That's just....confused.
Oops, sorry, confused is a code word for "old," so strike that. What I meant is that he's fibbing because he knows that a huge TV audience will hear what he said and that only about 1% of them will ever see or hear the correction.
But as long as we're on the subject, the infamous Bridge to Nowhere is a pretty good example of why this self-righteous nonsense about earmarks is so annoying. It's true that Congress killed the BtN, but this didn't save the American taxpayers a nickel. Sarah Palin just took the money and used it for other Alaska projects. And that's the way all earmarks work: they're simply ways of directing spending. The actual amount of spending is set elsewhere, and it doesn't usually change whether or not any of it is earmarked.
In other words, even aside from the fact that earmarks don't add up to an awful lot of money, killing them wouldn't appreciably change spending levels anyway. The real question is whether members of Congress should have some direct say in where money is spent in their states and districts, or whether federal bureaucrats should make all those decisions. There are actually pretty good arguments on both sides. The bureaucrats have a better sense of the big picture but members of Congress have a better sense of what local residents really care about. Bureaucrats are less likely to be corrupt but members of Congress are less likely to make decisions with only a shallow knowledge of local conditions. And both sides are probably about equally likely to waste money on idiotic boondoggles.
Personally, I don't care much about earmarks, but to the extent I do, these are the grounds for debate. Not total spending. If I had my way I'd simply set aside a fixed amount for earmarks in transportation and infrastructure bills (say, 2-3% of the total) and then sit back safe in the knowledge that local residents have some direct say in how local money is spent, but that the vast majority will be spent in ways that make sense on a larger regional/national basis. But I'm just dreaming.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Comments
OhNoNotAgain observes: It's the same sh!t every election.
It sure is.
Then we give Democrats control of the Congress after they run their '06 campaign on getting us out of Iraq, and putting a stop to the 'earmark' pork spending, after which they make a big show of their 'earmark reform', only to turn around pull this sh!t:
Even before conferences on the 12 spending bills for fiscal year 2008, where most earmarks are typically added, critics note that the recently passed Water Resources Development Act added some $2 billion in earmarks in conference.
In a clarification of the intent of new reform bill, Senate majority leader Harry Reid told the Senate parliamentarian that the new law only applied to spending bills, not to authorization or tax bills. That means that members had no opportunity to challenge specific projects on the floor of the House or Senate.
"Under the OPEN Government Act that the president signed into law, everyone thought that the ability for senators to raise a point of order against earmarks added in conference applied to all bills ? appropriations, authorization, tax bills," says Tom Schatz, president of Citizens Against Government Waste, a budget watchdog group in Washington.
"Now, senators know that they can add projects with impunity to the authorization bill and no one can object. That's business as usual." he adds.
www.csmonitor.com/2007/1005/p01s01-uspo.html
Citizens Against Government Waste recently named Reid & Pelosi the co-winners of their August 'Porker of the Month' award.
Oh, and we're still in Iraq, if you haven't noticed.
Anyone who tells you, or strongly implies "it's all the Republicans' fault" is either an idiot, or they fervently hope you are.
OhNoNotAgain observes: It's the same sh!t every election.
It sure is.
Then we give Democrats control of the Congress after they run their '06 campaign on getting us out of Iraq, and putting a stop to the 'earmark' pork spending, after which they make a big show of their 'earmark reform', only to turn around pull this sh!t:
Even before conferences on the 12 spending bills for fiscal year 2008, where most earmarks are typically added, critics note that the recently passed Water Resources Development Act added some $2 billion in earmarks in conference.
In a clarification of the intent of new reform bill, Senate majority leader Harry Reid told the Senate parliamentarian that the new law only applied to spending bills, not to authorization or tax bills. That means that members had no opportunity to challenge specific projects on the floor of the House or Senate.
"Under the OPEN Government Act that the president signed into law, everyone thought that the ability for senators to raise a point of order against earmarks added in conference applied to all bills ? appropriations, authorization, tax bills," says Tom Schatz, president of Citizens Against Government Waste, a budget watchdog group in Washington.
"Now, senators know that they can add projects with impunity to the authorization bill and no one can object. That's business as usual." he adds.
www.csmonitor.com/2007/1005/p01s01-uspo.html
Citizens Against Government Waste recently named Reid & Pelosi the co-winners of their August 'Porker of the Month' award.
Oh, and we're still in Iraq, if you haven't noticed.
Anyone who tells you, or strongly implies "it's all the Republicans' fault" is either an idiot, or they fervently hope you are.
Look, the point of a free press is to let the Republican candidate drive the news cycle day after day. 'The View' is violating the fundamental American right of free speech and endangering the security of the United States in these uncertain times.
Kevin wrote: "So now John McCain is flatly saying that Sarah Palin has never requested an earmark? That's just....confused ... What I meant is that he's fibbing"
Kevin, with all due respect, if you are going to be so mealy-mouthed ("fibbing" ?!?) and not come right out and say that John McCain told a brazen, blatant, sickening, preposterous LIE, then why should you or anyone else expect the corporate-owned mass media to do so?
A wonkish discussion of earmarks is all very well, but the real point is not the pros and cons of earmarks. The point is that John McCain and Sarah Palin are LIARS and their entire campaign is based on nothing but LIES.
Keep in mind that this is the same John McCain who said during the primary campaign, and I quote: "I am the only one the special interests don't give any money to."
It didn't take Karl Rove to make John McCain a shameless, vicious liar. John McCain has always been a shameless, vicious liar. He not only deserves to lose this election, he deserves to be driven from American politics in disgrace.
Kevin, I think you give Congress too much credit for being responsive to constituents. Sarah Palin kept the bridge money and then decided not to build the bridge. Don Young would have forced the bridge on Alaska, but the governor decided the priority was elsewhere and didn't pay a political price for it.
When earmarks come from the House, they fall disproportionately in districts of powerful members. Governors are at least a little more likely to spread it around appropriately.
That's why I do give Sarah Palin a little credit on the bridge. She kept the money. She could have built the bridge. But she knew it was a stupid idea, so despite campaigning on it when push came to shove she didn't do the stupid thing.
Maybe now is a good time to go and run some errands and hit the gym. I've been sitting in front of the computer since about 10:30, doing what I usually do. I'm honestly not sure what to think any longer.
How is it that this race is even close? I know that, as much as I would like it, a 400-plus Electoral College vote victory is unlikely. I didn't expect Obama to be leading in the polls by ten points for the entire race, either. But how is McCain ahead in the national polls by a few points? How is he ahead in some state polls by a few points, or worse yet, by fifteen to twenty points?
Take what you describe above. What McCain is saying is plainly, demonstrably false. It's the equivalent of Hillary Clinton saying she never voted for the war. It's like Bush saying he never tried to cut taxes. It's like saying up is down, and black is white. You get the idea. And yet, I wouldn't be surprised if people repeated this as if it was an honest point of contention.
The Congressional polls are even more disturbing. How the fuck is the race even remotely close for the Congressional polls? How does a lead of at least ten points go down to three, or start showing the other side up by five? What the hell has changed in the two weeks since Sarah Palin has been on the ticket that would make the numbers flip like that?
I guess I'll feel a little bit more levelheaded as the day goes on. I was feeling better on Tuesday night, even after I read some disappointing polls. I know that a McCain-Palin administration is not going to break our nation, even if it's worse than we already think it will be. It's just that the other side has created such a pile of shit in the last eight years, it'll take even longer to clean it up. What's worse, it'll likely drive the Democrats in Congress over the edge. I know I've been joking that I'll need electroshock therapy if McCain wins, but if the Republicans take back Congress on top of that, I might need to be put in a padded room the rest of my life.
This election is no longer in our hands. It's completely up to the media. If they refuse to label McCain as a pathological liar, which is exactly what he is, McCain will win the election. It is absolutely impossible to win against a liar who is allowed to lie with impunity.
But technically speaking, isn't McCain right? Sarah Palin was a governor, so she couldn't request an earmark.
Uhm, no. Her office specifically requested earmarks.
She couldn't actually put them into legislation. She had to rely on her Senators for that. But she requested them, the record is clear.
Isn't credibility supposed to be one of the most valuable assets a president can have? McCain/Palin have sacrificed it in advance. Just what we need--another 4 years of assuming (here and abroad) that whatever comes out of the President's mouth is a lie, unless he can prove otherwise.
Brian J wrote: "I know that a McCain-Palin administration is not going to break our nation ..."
If a McCain-Palin administration delays the phaseout of fossil fuels for another eight years then it will "break" a lot more than "our nation".
If a McCain-Palin administration starts a war with Russia over control of Asian fossil fuel supplies, it will "break" a lot more than "our nation".
If a McCain-Palin administration attacks Iran, it will "break" a lot more than "our nation".
And if a McCain-Palin administration comes to power through a campaign of sickening, brazen lies enabled by the corporate media, and an election stolen through voter disenfranchisement and fraud, then "our nation" will have been broken even before they are sworn in ... let alone the "breaking" that will happen when they go on to "govern" in the same way that they gained power.
Actually Skeptic I have to disagree. She didn't build the bridge because it was a "stupid" thing, she would have if she could. Just as she built the nice new paved road to the beach where the bridge was supposed to go rather than give back 25M dollars. As a resident of Alaska I see how corrupt and irresponsible these people are day-to-day. There is a pipeline flowing oil not more than 1/4 mile from my house and I still pay over $4.10 a gallon of low octane gas. Big oil, mining, and conservative right-wing interests rule this state.
The point that McInsane loves to obfuscate is the fact that earmarks aren't the issue, transparency is. Earmarks serve as a valid and even valuable legislative mechanism for Congress to direct where appropriations should go.
If McInsane were truly serious about earmark reform, he could simply support the Obama-Coburn bill that would create a web registry of all legislative requests by any member of Congress. Viola!, problem solved.
If I was advising Obama:
"John McCain doesn't know how many houses he owns. He also doesn't know the most basic facts about his running mate's record. It's either that he doesn't know, or he is very confused. Whatever is is, can you trust a president who doesn't know these really simple things?"
Here's what bugs me about the earmarks. Two more of her claims are debunked.
1.
She claims to be a reformer. But, as Michael Kinsley pointed out here.
As if it couldn't support itself, Alaska also ranks No. 1, year after year, in money it sucks in from Washington. In 2005 (the most recent figures), according to the Tax Foundation, Alaska ranked 18th in federal taxes paid per resident ($5,434) but first in federal spending received per resident ($13,950). Its ratio of federal spending received to federal taxes paid ranks third among the 50 states, and in the absolute amount it receives from Washington over and above the amount it sends to Washington, Alaska ranks No. 1.
Further, $1.2 billion was disbursed in $3200 checks to each resident of Alaska this year. And we wonder why she is so popular. Yet, she still requested $200 million in earmarks for infrastructure projects. Seems a little hypocritical to me.
2.
She claims to have stood up to the old-boy-network. She clearly states in her support for the BtN that she she did not want to step on the congressional delegations toes here. If she were against the BtN, she didnt do a good job of standing up to Stevens and Young.
Don't all of you know that nothing John McCain says, makes any difference whatsoever to the outcome of this election? The military-industrial news conglomerate has decided that he is the one to best carry on the rape of American democracy and the looting of the U.S. Treasury that Bush nearly finished and nothing any of us say or do makes any difference. Give all the money you want to Obama's campaign, knock on as many doors as you like, write as many letters to the editor or post as many blog comments as you want - John McCain is going to win this election.
Conservative Deflator wrote: "The military-industrial news conglomerate has decided that he is the one to best carry on the rape of American democracy and the looting of the U.S. Treasury that Bush nearly finished and nothing any of us say or do makes any difference."
I am inclined to that point of view myself, and yet ...
America's Ultra-Rich Ruling Class, Inc. is not a monolith.
The Cheney-Bush regime, and the Palin-McCain campaign, represent the most reactionary, rapacious and ruthless elements of the corporate ruling class, who have held ascendancy for the last eight years.
But it is apparent that other elements of the corporate ruling class are uneasy about the rampant corruption and criminality, the incompetence and recklessness, of the Republicans, and are beginning to see that as a threat even to their interests.
If enough of the corporate aristocracy takes that view, within the next eight weeks, they may decide to bite the bullet and accept the marginally higher Clinton-era tax rates, and modest transfer of wealth to the middle class that Obama is proposing as the price of competent, technocratic government that will bring some stability to the country and the economy while not seriously challenging their rule.
If that happens, I would expect to see a shift in the corporate-owned media's coverage of the campaign, in the direction of calling out Palin-McCain on their lies and backing off on the character assassination of Obama. And without the active complicity and support of the corporate media, Palin and McCain are toast.
In the Middle Ages, in the era of the "divine right of kings", there was no hope of democracy or representative government. But people could always hope for a "good king" rather than a "bad king", and sometimes they were fortunate to get a "good king".
Today, in the era of the "divine right of capital", there is no serious chance of overturning the rule of the corporate aristocracy. But we may hope that "cooler heads" will prevail in the boardrooms of the corporate ruling class, and we may hope for a "kinder and gentler" corporate rule. That's essentially what we had in the Clinton years, and that's the best we can hope for from an Obama presidency.
The problem with earmarks, as well as with a lot of other pork type projects, is that the decisionmakers see a choice of using someone elses money to help local causes. So even if the project is to employ local people to build a bonfire out of stacks of money, it is seen as a win for the local economy -even if on a national scale it is just wasting money. If a state wants a project bad enough, they can choose to spend their own money on it. That way if the return of investment is really crummy (like say negative), they are likely to just so no.
But it is apparent that other elements of the corporate ruling class are uneasy about the rampant corruption and criminality, the incompetence and recklessness, of the Republicans, and are beginning to see that as a threat even to their interests. Posted by: SecularAnimist
SA, I'm too lazy to find it this afternoon, but there was a list compiled in 2004 of the major wealth in this country (Forbes/Fortune 100 types), and Kerry gained a lot more support from them than Bush. My guess is that it's the same again.
My guess is that it's primarily nouveau riche, the folks, inexplicably, insecure about their $1mill/year income that would fight longest and loudest to maintain Shrub's tax cuts who are supporting McCain.
Why does the choice have to be between members of Congress deciding where the money goes and federal bureaucrats deciding? Why can't the money just be given directly to the state government, which decides how best to spend it?
Of course, this begs the question of why the federal government should collect taxes only to return them to the states -- why not just have the state collect the taxes for its own infrastructure projects? But I guess that's a separate issue.
Why does the choice have to be between members of Congress deciding where the money goes and federal bureaucrats deciding? Why can't the money just be given directly to the state government, which decides how best to spend it? Posted by: Douglas Beach
Douglas,
In general, that's the case. However, earmarks go, typically, to pet projects of dubious value other than to the re-electability of the member of congress who secures the funding. It's money above and beyond the shared revenue already received by states. And, as has been pointed out in a number of places, Alaska, like most red states, is a welfare state, receiving more per capita in payouts from the federal government than they pay in taxes. Fucking stupid in the extreme given the oil royalties they've been booking over the last three decades. What the hell do they need earmarks for? They can pay for their own damn bridges to nowhere.
Worrying about earmarks is like worrying about the $80 cable bill when your mortgage payment is $2k a month and your health insurance is $800 a month and climbing. It's the same shit every election. The Republican's say "Look over there !", and everyone looks there while they pass out money to their crony buddies.
OhNoNotAgain observes: It's the same sh!t every election.
It sure is.
Then we give Democrats control of the Congress after they run their '06 campaign on getting us out of Iraq, and putting a stop to the 'earmark' pork spending, after which they make a big show of their 'earmark reform', only to turn around pull this sh!t:
Even before conferences on the 12 spending bills for fiscal year 2008, where most earmarks are typically added, critics note that the recently passed Water Resources Development Act added some $2 billion in earmarks in conference.
In a clarification of the intent of new reform bill, Senate majority leader Harry Reid told the Senate parliamentarian that the new law only applied to spending bills, not to authorization or tax bills. That means that members had no opportunity to challenge specific projects on the floor of the House or Senate.
"Under the OPEN Government Act that the president signed into law, everyone thought that the ability for senators to raise a point of order against earmarks added in conference applied to all bills appropriations, authorization, tax bills," says Tom Schatz, president of Citizens Against Government Waste, a budget watchdog group in Washington.
"Now, senators know that they can add projects with impunity to the authorization bill and no one can object. That's business as usual." he adds.
www.csmonitor.com/2007/1005/p01s01-uspo.html
Citizens Against Government Waste recently named Reid & Pelosi the co-winners of their August 'Porker of the Month' award.
Oh, and we're still in Iraq, if you haven't noticed.
Anyone who tells you, or strongly implies "it's all the Republicans' fault" is either an idiot, or they fervently hope you are.
@ Douglas Beach: Why does the choice have to be between members of Congress deciding where the money goes and federal bureaucrats deciding? Why can't the money just be given directly to the state government, which decides how best to spend it?
Of course, this begs the question of why the federal government should collect taxes only to return them to the states -- why not just have the state collect the taxes for its own infrastructure projects? But I guess that's a separate issue.
I think it's primarily about Control, at the federal level.
That, and having the biggest possible pile of money to tap into to benefit themselves and their DC Beltway buddies, before they graciously re-distribute what's left over back to the States it came from, with a spider's nightmare worth of strings attached, which wouldn't be there if the States could maintain control of the money that comes from their own taxpayers.
"He's fibbing because he knows that a huge TV audience will hear what he said and that only about 1% of them will ever see or hear the correction." And that's how he will probably win. But then how can he govern? Is this going to be a four year train wreck or what? Maybe the Barracuda will dispose of him like she did of Makowski and Stevens. It could be fun (in a sick way) to watch Palin operate against the McCain.
So McCain is now opposed to all earmarks? And has threatened to eliminate or veto all of them if elected?
Someone better tell the Jewish lobby. Because if we hold McCain at his word that would mean eliminating all foreign aid to Israel. Foreign aid for Israel is, in fact, one of the Congressional earmarks that McCain wants to eliminate. Presumably in McCain's world, the State Dept. would receive a lump sum budget and professional bureaucrats would decide how to distribute American aid around the world. That might well be a good idea for all I know. But it would certainly eliminate the line-item for foreign aid for Israel.
Instead, republicans put out an ad that states that Obama calling Palin a "liar" is disrespectful. Eventhough they are both obviously lying.
But, hey, wouldn't you love to have a beer with 'em?
Is this really what America has come to?
Vonnegut- Hocus Pocus- comes to mind more and more in America. Ignorance and stupidity are awarded for their valor.
I guess McCain didn't get this article written by John Katz, director of State-Federal Relations and Special Counsel to Gov. Sarah Palin.
He is explaining the governor's earmark requests to the citizens of Alaska. Some excerpts:
Palin not abandoning earmarks altogether
The term earmark means different things to different people. The classic definition connotes an amount of money added by a member of Congress to the president's budget for a specific project or program.
In my opinion, earmarks are not bad in themselves. In fact, they represent a legitimate exercise of Congress' constitutional power to amend the budget proposed by the president.
The Palin administration has responded to this message by requesting 31 earmarks, down from 54 last year. Of these, 27 involve continuing or previous appropriations and four are new. The total dollar amount of these requests has been reduced from about $550 million in the previous year to just less than $200 million.
And this:
The governor is very much aware of the importance of the federal budget to virtually every Alaskan. In responding to the new realities, we are not abandoning earmarks altogether but are seeking to constrain and document them in the ways discussed here.
http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/031808/opi_258953362.shtml
There's a lot more to the bridge story. The media is missing the details as they focus on the flip-flop.
There were 2 bridges in the original earmark. One of them, the Knik Arm Bridge, is still going forward. So far about $41.5 million. It's estimated it will cost between $600 million and $1 billion.
Since Congress changed the language of the earmark in Nov 2005 removing the bridges but allowing Alaska to keep the money, and she was elected in 2006 - who did she say "No thanks" to? It's a good line but not true.
There was a separate earmark for a 3 mile highway (Gravina Access Highway)joining the Bridge to Nowhere. Congress didn't change the language on that earmark. The funds had to be used for the road or returned to the federal government.
The road is under construction. Since there isn't a bridge anymore, it ends at an empty beach.
If she wanted to be a maverick, a reformer, she should have canceled the highway and returned the money.
Check this for details of the 2 bridges and the Road-to-Nowhere.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/12/13025/5790/217/592704
Eliminating earmarks is one of the cornerstones of the McCain campaign. This is a distraction. One of those things that sound good but do nothing. 1% of the federal budget goes to earmarks. Huge difference that will make.
We hear about the sensational earmarks like studying the DNA of seals. We don't hear about the money provided to fund new programs, equipment, or construction at hospitals for example.
How will those things be funded under McCain's plan?
Let's not forget that Alaska has a $5 billion SURPLUS and still gets all those earmarks.
One question, on the earmark dollars going to Alaska - does the amount being quoted in the media represent only the amount going to the state government or does it also include the amount going to towns like Wasilla?
Tiffany 1837 replica
Submitted by Tiffany 1837 replica (not verified) on Sun Nov. 8, 2009 10:23 AM PST.
fake
fake Tiffany Rings
fake Tiffany Pendants
Tiffany Earrings fake
Tiffany Necklaces fake
fake Tiffany Heart
fake Tiffany 1837
Panerai watch for sale
Submitted by Panerai watch for sale (not verified) on Sun Nov. 8, 2009 10:27 AM PST.
Patek Philippe watch for sale
Rado watch for sale
Tag Heuer watch for sale
Tudor watch for sale
U-Boat watch for sale
Vacheron Constantin watch for sale
replica watch
Submitted by replica watch (not verified) on Sun Nov. 8, 2009 10:29 AM PST.
replica A.Lange & Sohne
replica Bell & Ross
replica Breguet
replica Breitling
replica Bvlgari
replica Cartier
replica Rolex Masterpiece
Submitted by replica Rolex Masterpiece (not verified) on Fri Nov. 13, 2009 10:45 PM PST.
replica Rolex Datejust II
replica Rolex Datejust
replica Rolex Submariner
replica Yachtmaster
replica Rolex Day-Date II
replica Rolex Daytona
replica Rolex Explorer
replica Rolex GMT
replica Rolex Sea-Dweller
replica Rolex Day Date
replica Rolex Masterpiece
a.Lange & sohne
Submitted by watches (not verified) on Fri Nov. 13, 2009 11:51 PM PST.
a.Lange & sohne watches
Audemars Piguet watches
Bell & Ross watches
Breguet watches
Breitling watches
Burberry watches
Post new comment
MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback
We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.
