You Call This Earmark Reform?

Sen. Tom Coburn, the most despised man in the U. S. Senate, made an effort to force the Senate to re-direct all the earmarks in the federal budget first to interstate highways and bridge repair and then to medically uninsured children. After all, it is for the children, isn't it? Harry Reid shut him down. Looks like the planned U.S. Post Office museum is going ahead. All of Las Vegas breathes a sigh of relief.

Don't ya just love the way the Democrats have brought "reform" to Congress? How pathetic.

Why do people object to earmark legislation? Lots of worthwhile projects get funded this way don't they? Is this new anti-earmark movement a spinoff from the anti-gvt. rightwing movement of a few years back?

Do they keep an eye peeled for black helicopters and check the back side of Interstate Highway signs for various clues and communications for the soon to come occupying army of the blue helmeted UN?

passerby wrote:Why do people object to earmark legislation? Lots of worthwhile projects get funded this way don't they?

If the projects are "worthwhile" ( and I agree that many of them are), then why hide them away in the "fine print" of bills extraneous to the project(s) being funded? What is so wrong with open and honest disussion about spending money on projects that they are often hidden away from disclosure until after the fact? A cynic might suspect that it smacks of cronyism and back room dealmaking. But none of us would be so cynical, right?

passerby wrote:Why do people object to earmark legislation? Lots of worthwhile projects get funded this way don't they? Is this new anti-earmark movement a spinoff from the anti-gvt. rightwing movement of a few years back?

Do they keep an eye peeled for black helicopters and check the back side of Interstate Highway signs for various clues and communications for the soon to come occupying army of the blue helmeted UN?

I won't speak for anyone other than myself, but I'll be very happy to tell you the reasons I'm opposed to earmarking.

Earmarks have resulted in billions of taxpayer dollars being spent on bridges to nowhere, and millions upon millions of dollars for programs for "native" Alaskans and "native" Hawaiians. Last time I checked they were no more American than me or my children. We were all born right here in the good old USA.

I'm very interested in reducing the size of government. I'd like to see the federal government act within the parameters laid out in the Constitution.

I'd like to see a more open and honest government. It has become increasingly difficult for average citizens to have their concerns heard by members of Congress as it is. When big dollar pork spending is added in the final moments of legislation being voted upon in the 11th hour, the public is allowed zero input.

I believe working Americans would be far better off with more of their money in their own pockets rather than being confiscated by the federal government in order to fund projects for special interst groups with clout. I believe we'd have better representation of our leaders were elected and reelected based upon their votes on critical issues instead of how much bacon they can bring to the public trough.

I suppose it boils down to the question of whether gvt. is analogous to a tool that we use to achieve a satisfactory state of affairs or is it a sacrosanct set of hard and fast rules.

Personally I am a duct tape and baling wire kind of person so I say make it work the best you can with what you have available.

So if somebody from another District has a big new project he needs my Senator's vote on I wouldn't mind my Senator saying well ok but I got this constituent named passerby and he keeps hounding me to get his road fixed so can you help me get him off my back?

So my Senator just says let's just add this much needed little project right in there and I will vote for your big project.

So what's wrong with that.?

passerby wrote:
So if somebody from another District has a big new project he needs my Senator's vote on I wouldn't mind my Senator saying well ok but I got this constituent named passerby and he keeps hounding me to get his road fixed so can you help me get him off my back?

So my Senator just says let's just add this much needed little project right in there and I will vote for your big project.

So what's wrong with that.?

What's wrong with it is that two people have made a "private" deal to fund a project that 100 Senators or 435 House members should have been involved in publicly.

I am not sure you understand that the majority still has to vote for it, even after the earmark. Just two cannot pass it.

But if it is a close vote and someone needs a Senator's vote (let's just say Sen. Byrd for example), what would be wrong with him saying I will scratch yours if you scratch mine?

When you work in a job awhile you see ways to get things done that someone on the outside would not.

That is true most jobs I have had.

I like the concept of the following- from the Constitution of West Virginia:

6-30. Acts to embrace but one object -- Time of effect.

No act hereafter passed shall embrace more than one object, and that shall be expressed in the title. But if any object shall be embraced in an act which is not so expressed, the act shall be void only as to so much thereof, as shall not be so expressed, and no law shall be revived, or amended, by reference to its title only; but the law revived, or the section amended, shall be inserted at large, in the new act. ......................

http://www.legis.state.wv.us/WVCODE/WV_CON.cfm#articlevI.

I would like it that the U.S. House and Senate had similar rules for their own legislation.

passerby wrote:I am not sure you understand that the majority still has to vote for it, even after the earmark. Just two cannot pass it.

Yes, I do understand that. But no Senator or congressman can be expected to know every word in every bill. A bill whose title addresess a particular matter has gone through committee(s) whose "expertise" can be presumed to have made the needed considerations in order to effect the committee sending it to the floor with a recommendation for passge- the "experts" having considerated its ramifications. But when some extraneous spending proposal- to fund a bridge from Kalamazoo to Timbuckto is part of a bill to authorize study of a new military super-weapon for example, then the expertise of the committee on roads and bridges or infrastructure has been by-passed. Congress then effectively does not know what is it voting on. So the assertion that "the majority still has to vote for it" is rendered to a joke- as relates to the unrelated earmarked spending inserted in the middle of the night.

But if it is a close vote and someone needs a Senator's vote (let's just say Sen. Byrd for example), what would be wrong with him saying I will scratch yours if you scratch mine?

If it's a "close vote", then it needs to be sold on the basis of the merits, not on some unrelated quid pro quo scheme.

When you work in a job awhile you see ways to get things done that someone on the outside would not. That is true most jobs I have had.

If the only objective is to "get things done", then why have a democratic process for selecting congress persons and for making legislation? If the objective is simply to "get things done", then a kingdom, or a fascist state, and not a democratic republic, is the most effecient at getting things done. When we by-pass the structures of democratic function, then we find ourselves on the road to fascism- which the ownership or control of government by an individual, by a group or controlling private power(s)."

"I'd like to see the federal government act within the parameters laid out in the Constitution...."

Well sometimes I think authoritarian types like to have everything "written in stone" so to speak.

They are not satisfied to just say I think so and so and here is why.

And there are two types of authoritarians I refer to. Religionists and Constitutionalists.

The religionists say the Bible says so and so to give it more legitimacy. God said it, I believe it, case closed.

And the Constitutionalists just say such and such is unconstitutional. Case closed.

So when someone bases their argument on either of those criteria I like to ask for a source.

So could you cite where the Constitution says earmarks are not acceptable?

Matter of fact I dont think it even mentions committees or any of that stuff.

That is just rules and procedures they have adopted.

passerby wrote:So could you cite where the Constitution says earmarks are not acceptable?

Matter of fact I dont think it even mentions committees or any of that stuff.

That is just rules and procedures they have adopted.

And another thing they have adopted is the committee system. A reason for that is that every Senator or congressman cannot be expected to be an expert nor even well versed on every subject addressed by congressional legislation. The committee system allows those with interest or expertise in certain areas to offer that on specific legislation, while others do the same on other kinds of legislation. At some point they have to trust that their respective committees have done their "homework" on specific bills. Attaching extraneous "earmarks" to unrelated legislation defeats the committee process- and effectively defeats reasonable concepts of democratic deliberation of spending authority on certain projects.

passerby wrote:
So could you cite where the Constitution says earmarks are not acceptable?

Matter of fact I dont think it even mentions committees or any of that stuff.

That is just rules and procedures they have adopted.

The US Constitution is not a "living document" or a list of suggestions. The US Constitution is a legal document. It is the LAW as to how the nation is governed and who has what authority. It says some things and doesn't say others. Article 1, section 8 lists the responsibilities and authority of congress. Since the various duties of congress are listed, what is not listed is excluded.

Now, earmarks in and of themselves are not unconstitutional, provided, they are included in a budget bill, lawfully passed by congress, signed by the president, AND fall within the authority and areas of responsibility granted congress in Article 1 section 8 of the US Constitution.

Even though earmarks are a pathetic gimmick used to buy votes, what ultimately determines constitutionality is what the earmark is used for.

Well I appreciate Cato's acceptance (albeit reluctantly so) that the so-called earmark process is not "unconstitutional", and attempts to brand them as such are just futile attempts to institutionalize personal opinions.

Also, if it's any solace, I suspect the grandiose stories about some of these projects are grossly overstated and hyped by the media.

The real waste and gross spending is on military projects and operations.

By a factor of a hundredfold.

So if you are truly concerned about wasteful spending don't waste your time about an earmark for a few million for infrastructure somewhere in America.

That is what you call gag on a gnat and swallow a camel imo.

passerby wrote:Well I appreciate Cato's acceptance (albeit reluctantly so) that the so-called earmark process is not "unconstitutional", and attempts to brand them as such are just futile attempts to institutionalize personal opinions.

Also, if it's any solace, I suspect the grandiose stories about some of these projects are grossly overstated and hyped by the media.

The real waste and gross spending is on military projects and operations.

By a factor of a hundredfold.

So if you are truly concerned about wasteful spending don't waste your time about an earmark for a few million for infrastructure somewhere in America.

That is what you call gag on a gnat and swallow a camel imo.

Well passerby, perhaps you should join the forum and get to know the members a little better.

I assure you you'll be hard pressed to find people more outraged over the money and, most importantly, lives being wasted due to military operations and projects than the people you've been conversing with here in this forum.

That said, don't expect me to remain silent about other pork barrel spending or the underhanded tactics used by the members of both houses of Congress to get their little pet projects pushed through. We've turned a blind eye to it all for too long and that's how we ended up in this deplorable shape we're in now.

Well zig I will probably join but am just gunshy about things right now.

I just have not figured out all the whole deal here on the new forum yet.

I don't know why they shut it down before and I meant to just be an observor when I found out about the new forum.

But I discovered you can post without joining and giving all the personal info so that's why I am just a passerby right now ok.

In other words, why buy the cow why you can get the milk for free ......................................?

But that's OK, passerby. I suspicioned you by your 1st post, and I recognized you for sure by your 2nd post. So we don't need your personal info. anyway. So you're not really annonemous ................., uh anyomineaus, er ominimous ................., oh hell, you're not unknown. Your cover is blown. Welcome abroad- er, uh aboard.

passerby wrote:Well I appreciate Cato's acceptance (albeit reluctantly so) that the so-called earmark process is not "unconstitutional", and attempts to brand them as such are just futile attempts to institutionalize personal opinions.

It is not unconsitutional provided various conditions are met. First and for most that the psending is for something allowed under the US Constitution, and that the ear mark is voted and passed by both houses and signed by the president.

passerby wrote:Also, if it's any solace, I suspect the grandiose stories about some of these projects are grossly overstated and hyped by the media.

The real waste and gross spending is on military projects and operations.

By a factor of a hundredfold.

Yes, there is plenty of waste within the military. That waste is in the misuse of the the military or actually in a failed foreign policy. Our foeign policy has been a failure for a number of decades now.

If you want waste or better yet purely unconstitutional spending here is a few items:

1. All foreign aid.
2. All Welfare, both social and corporate
3. All Farm and agricultural spending
4. Social Security
5. Medicare and Medicad
6. All Support for the United Nations
7. All Military not presently located on US Soil or in international waters.

passerby wrote:So if you are truly concerned about wasteful spending don't waste your time about an earmark for a few million for infrastructure somewhere in America.

That is what you call gag on a gnat and swallow a camel imo.

The ending of wasteful spending will start with ending unconstitutional spending.

Why do people object to earmark legislation? Lots of worthwhile projects get funded this way don't they? Is this new anti-earmark movement a spinoff from the anti-gvt. rightwing movement of a few years back?

I object to earmarks because of the waste. The budget process is such that the money is already allocated. Some suggest that Congressional use of earmarks denies budgetary dollars to bureaucrats. Trim the budget and outlaw earmarks and I'll be happy.

What worthwhile projects get funded this way? Be specific.

No, the new anti-earmark movement is not a spinoff from the anti-government right-wing movement of a few years back. The new anti-earmark movement is a promise by the new Congressional majority which has failed to deliver what was promised.

Awash as you are in the Ganges, I've done your homework for you. This file is 690 pages. I didn't see anything during a cursory glance that merited funding. Maybe you can:

http://demint.senate.gov/public/_files/2007-12-17_OmniEarmarkCharts.pdf

Well thanks for the effort but I, being a working stiff, do not have a high speed connection to accomodate such files.

But riddle me this.

As a percent of total waste, do earmarks account for even 1%?

I rest my case.

Gag on gnat, swallow camel.

1% of what? 1% of public debt? That would be nearly ten billion dollars. Earmarks in this year's budget are $29 billion. That may not qualify as real money in Jackson County but that's a whole lot of waste where I come from.

http://www.cagw.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=11166

ohio county wrote:No, the new anti-earmark movement is not a spinoff from the anti-government right-wing movement of a few years back. The new anti-earmark movement is a promise by the new Congressional majority which has failed to deliver what was promised.

Is not the anti-earmark movement and old thingy, ......... and called "the Line Item Veto"?

.

Earmarks are the best argument for a line item veto. However, I'm thinking the Supreme Court has ruled that a line item veto is not authorized by the Constitution and, therefore, will not be.