(CNN) -- Despite the new Democratic congressional leadership's promise of "openness and transparency" in the budget process, a CNN survey of the House found it nearly impossible to get information on lawmakers' pet projects.
Staffers for only 31 of the 435 members of the House contacted by CNN between Wednesday and Friday of last week supplied a list of their earmark requests for fiscal year 2008, which begins on October 1, or pointed callers to Web sites where those earmark requests were posted.
Of the remainder, 68 declined to provide CNN with a list, and 329 either didn't respond to requests or said they would get back to us, and didn't.
District: Ohio 09
Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D)
Response: Yes
I'm not surprised, just disappointed.
Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss.
-- "Won't Get Fooled Again," The Who
lived up to my expectations, the cowards.
And yet, it's already a huge improvement over the 109th
http://nookularoption.blogspot.com/
And yet, it's already a huge
Submitted by Chris on Tue, 2007-06-19 22:38.
And yet, it's already a huge improvement over the 109th
I have to confess I was working on other things - can you bring me up to speed?
it's already a huge improvement over the 109th
True because they're not called earmarks anymore. Pelosi changed the name to "legislative directives" so in fact, the number of "earmarks" will be reduced to zero.
A couple sites to follow: http://porkbusters.org and http://sunlightfoundation.com/.
In 2005, the top 20 corporate recipients of earmarks were all defense contractors. It will be interesting to see if this holds true with the current Congress.
A little history about earmark expansion: "In 1994, according to the Congressional Research Service, 4,126 earmarks worth $1.6 billion were added to appropriations bills. By 2005, the practice had mushroomed to include 15,887 earmarks worth $47.4 billion."
Those numbers conflict with the CNN story that started this thread, which said: "In 2006, Congress approved a record $29 billion in earmarks. The 2006 total was 6.2 percent more than 2005's $27.3 billion."
The CNN story mentions Citizens Against Government Waste, and what the CAGW considers to be "pork" must be different than what the Congressional Research Service considers to be an "earmark."
Now currently, the number of earmark requests for 2008 is over 30,000, and I believe the number of requests a year or two ago was higher. I'm guessing this is what Chris is referring to by being a huge improvement over the 109th.
From everything that happened in '06 I did have hope that one issue would be moved along faster under the dems. That of a solution to the border. I'm still waiting.
MikeyA
this is just another reason to look at ron paul for president.
I don't know much about this Ron Paul, but the idea that he will change this issue is, I think, wishful thinking. Let's say he makes it so nothing passes Congress because of earmarks. We might save billions, but it would still cost us millions. Also, we would have a legislative body that would continue to cost us millions in legislative salaries (not to mention their staffs), and still would look forward to paying medical bills for them (and their families) under the best medical insurance in the nation, and paying their retirement rather they did a damn thing or not! Electing a President isn't going to do it, we need to reform Congress!
And we are in the middle of a war (which costs money). There is plenty of room for waste, and whoever we elect will look at what has to be done, and say " "A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon, you're talking real money". (attributed to Everett Dirksen, U.S. Senate, 1950-1969)
but I think the Republican Party has done just what it set out to do. The money was there, and it was spent. The Democrats are left looking like fools. People complain about their "spending", but the truth is the "kitty" is getting bare. At some point in the near future the Democrats (who were known as the party of the "working man") won't be able to fund any future programs, or maintain the ones that are there. The resources have been used. The budget deficit, and the National Debt are there.
There is no way (in the next generation) that the Democratic Party will be able to use the "tax and spend" agenda. The Republicans have already done it. In future, all the American taxpayer will be left with is to figure out (like an individual who has overspent his/her credit) what bills he can pay, and which he can leave go to the next year. Eventually, we will have to renege on our debt payments, and then it will be a matter of stricly "pay as you go" because no nation, or rich individual, will buy our bonds, or other debt instruments.
typical partisan banter
Yeah, I was referring to the record setting 2006 season by the 109th. These were items that were blindly signed off on, but now of course there's greater scrutiny due to the promises of Pelosi, et al. And the fact that the President is threatening to veto everything under the sun, and laughingly using "pork spending" as an excuse. Plus these rules were enacted in Congress on the first day of the 110th:
--Prohibited the use of earmarks to reward or punish a member of Congress for any vote he or she might cast.
--Required that any member of Congress requesting a district-oriented earmark disclose in writing the name and address of the intended recipient, the purpose of the earmark, and whether the member has a financial interest in the organization or would benefit personally from the inclusion of the earmark.
--Required that all matters before a conference committee (including earmarks) must be subject to full and open debate, that a final version of a conference report must be voted on by a meeting open to all members of the conference committee, and that no item (including earmarks) may be added to the legislation after the conference committee has adjourned.
Now whether any improvement is actually seen, we'll just have to wait and see. But I think the increased scrutiny is, in itself, a step in the right direction.
http://nookularoption.blogspot.com/
...you need to read this. I think you'll like what Ron Paul has to say on the issue. He explains what many don't realize - that the spending levels are already set and if Congress doesn't spend the money on earmarks, then the bureaucrats will spend it on something else. His solution is to reduce the spending level in the first place.
This is his weekly column that he's published for many years:
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst061807.htm
...much more than a candidate's position on gay marriage, abortion, faith, charter schools...or most topics that these candidates talk about these days...