What is the big deal with earmarks?

by **ohio county** Sun Jun 15, 2008 12:50 am

After all, earmarks does not exceed the amount of funds budgeted. There is no extraordinary cost. All earmarks do is deny bureaucrats the authority to decide how funding is spent in a very real way.

Well, no. There are concrete ethical reasons why earmarking is wrong and the public abhors it. Among them:

*Rep. Silvestre Reyes’ (D-TX) largest campaign contributor over the last reporting period (with at least $18,000 in individual contributions) is Digital Fusion, for which he requested a $4 million earmark for “Operational/Technical Training Validation Testbed.” This earmark request is especially remarkable considering that Digital Fusion may have illegally reimbursed company executives for political contributions made to Reyes, according to an investigation by the Wall Street Journal.

*Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) obtained an earmark for $5.4 million for a “Hyperspectral Sensor for Improved Force Protection” from Clean Earth Technologies, Akin’s largest campaign donor with over $14,000 in contributions. Clean Earth Technologies is located in Akin’s home state of Missouri and dedicated a division to the research and development of different imaging technologies. Akin is also the only lawmaker to receive any donation from Clean Earth Technologies during this cycle.

*Continuing this trend, Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) requested a $3.5 million earmark for DRS Technologies to build “Short Range electro-optic sensors” in Florida. This request comes after DRS Technologies became Nelson’s top campaign donor with contributions totaling $62,800 over the last year and the start of this election cycle.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/06/14/pork-explosion-dem-congress-breaks-its-promise/

Currently, the democrats hold the lead in earmarks but that's only because they hold the numerical advantage. The republican leadership in both Houses has pledged earmark reform as a return to fiscal conservativism. So far that has not amounted to any real reform movement.

by ziggy Sun Jun 15, 2008 9:42 am

The republican leadership in both Houses has pledged earmark reform as a return to fiscal conservativism. So far that has not amounted to any real reform movement.

And in 1994 they were promising "term limits" too.

by shermangeneral Sun Jun 15, 2008 10:01 am

Not to mention budget deficits.

What is it 75% of all the National Debt run up by Bush, Bush, and Reagan?

http://www.debate.com/debates/recent-republican-presidents-regan-bush-and-bush-are-to-blame-for-sky-rocket-deficit-spending-debt/2/

Lets face it the big Parties are not static organizations.

They are constantly ebbing and flowing vis a vis their approaches to public policy.

Hail if they didn't I would be a Lincoln/Teddy Roosevelt republican and the current crop of rightwing wackos would be devout democrats supporting "states' rights, slavery, and the flat earth society.

by **ohio county** Sun Jun 15, 2008 10:08 am

Okay. And this morning Sens Dodd and Conrad awoke and realized that they'd been given preferential treatment by Countrywide's Mozilo. Whichever party wins the majority also earns the majority of corruption indictments. Whichever party wins the majority finds it easier to break their campaign promises.

Whichever party you support is going to sell you out and pander to your enemies in order to insure re-election. The only ebbing and flowing I see is at the trough.

I won't disagree that over time philosophical principles can do 180 degree turns. But over the short term, the focus is on who can pilfer the public dollar.

by shermangeneral Sun Jun 15, 2008 10:22 am

Well I cannot argue with the fact that power corrupts.And I agree that just because Parties have platforms does not mean they have principles.

Just look at Pelosi and cro for i.e.

Way back when I first joined the old Gazette forums (where we had rules and more serious discussions) I posted a link to George Washington's Farewell Address to the Nation wherein he admonished us to avoid the pitfalls of political parties.

However I seem to be missing your justification for allowing Bureaucrats instead of the elected Representatives to decide where public money is spent.

But I respect your opinion and will keep trying to get your point.

by **ohio county** Sun Jun 15, 2008 10:38 am

You don't have a problem with Silvestre Reyes making an earmark to reward his biggest campaign contributor?

You think it is the will of the people for Todd Akin to reward his biggest campaign contrbutor through the public coffers?

It must be democracy that allows Bill Nelson to pay off his biggest campaign contributor?

Fire the bureaucrats and cut taxes and turn the bums out into the real world.

by **ohio county** Sun Jun 15, 2008 10:53 am

...the old Gazette forums (where we had rules and more serious discussions_

There was a little more variety on the old Gazette forums. But the discussion was rarely more serious than it is here. There were also rules but they were not enforced with the objectivity that you or Dan congratulated yourselves upon.

I don't recall seeing you at the old Daily Mail forums. Now there was a cesspool. That was anarchy of the lowest order. This is Athenian demos compared to that.

For your sake and mine I wish there were more doctrinaire democrats like yourself with whom to argue. I like to argue with you but you tend to get a little sensitive. I don't mean that unkindly but I really don't understand you.

by Aaron Sun Jun 15, 2008 11:37 am

shermangeneral wrote:
What is it 75% of all the National Debt run up by Bush, Bush, and Reagan?

I think you meant why are 7%%... and the answer is simple. They spent it on defense spending (mentioned in constitution) after Carter and Clinton nearly destroyed the military by bleeding it dry and allowing equipment to deteriorate to a woeful state. This was in addition to all the entitlement spending (not at all authorized by the constitution) we as a nation have accumulated from both parties (mostly democrats but they did need some Republican help) over the years.

by shermangeneral Sun Jun 15, 2008 11:46 am

Aaron I believe there was some justification for criticizing the Dems for their lack of fiscal accountability in the past.

But in the past 20 years or so I honestly believe if anything the republicans were worse spendthrifts than the Dems.

by shermangeneral Sun Jun 15, 2008 2:34 pm

Well it is a public road. And it is periodically flooded for extended periods due to public locks and dams backing the Ohio River up.

So I would like them to either raise the road or quit holding back the H2O.

They say they cant fill in and raise theroad because that would be interfering with the natural flow of the river.

But if they left the river natural it would not back up the water.

So go figure.

(see why I dont want bureaucrats in charge? If I could get my uncle in Congress maybe he could get my road fixed.)

by Aaron Sun Jun 15, 2008 2:37 pm

I'm glad you finally agree Sherm that the DOH is pretty much useless and we would be better off without the vast majority of the shovel holders.

by Sponsored content

What is the big deal with earmarks?

What is the big deal with earmarks?

Re: What is the big deal with earmarks?

Re: What is the big deal with earmarks?

Re: What is the big deal with earmarks?

Re: What is the big deal with earmarks?

Re: What is the big deal with earmarks?

Re: What is the big deal with earmarks?

Re: What is the big deal with earmarks?

Re: What is the big deal with earmarks?

Re: What is the big deal with earmarks?

Re: What is the big deal with earmarks?

Re: What is the big deal with earmarks?