NYT op-ed: Don’t Get Rid of Earmarks, by Rahm Emanuel

Don’t Get Rid of Earmarks
By RAHM EMANUEL
Published: August 24, 2007
Washington

DEMOCRATS made earmark reform a campaign issue in 2006 — and a reality in 2007 — because earmarks were at the heart of corruption scandals in Washington. Democrats never promised to eliminate earmarks. We promised to reform them.

Putting all earmarks in the same boat, as critics often do, distorts the debate and does a disservice to the public. Not all earmarks are equal. For six years, some members of Congress provided secret earmarks for lobbyists in exchange for campaign contributions, foreign trips and, in some cases, outright bribes. The core of the problem was that the earmarks were hidden from the press and the public. There was no opportunity to review either their sponsorship or their merit before their passage. The new Democratic Congress now requires that each earmark be fully described and its sponsor identified. Members of Congress who sponsor earmarks must certify that they have no personal financial interest in them. Any private entity that might benefit must be clearly reported. Each of these reforms is now mandatory, in stark contrast to previous practices....

Some members of Congress, on both sides of the aisle, eschew earmarks. That is their right. But most members believe it is their prerogative and their duty to channel federal resources to important public purposes....

***

Bringing transparency and accountability to the earmark process is a significant reform, a pledge we made and a pledge we kept. And it’s one we’ve extended to lobbyists, by barring them from providing gifts or trips to members of Congress and by increasing reporting requirements for their meetings and their campaign money-raising activities. To overlook or dismiss the impact of these reforms adds to the public’s cynicism about government.

We can certainly have an honest debate about earmarks. I happen to believe that I know more about the needs of the people I represent than some bureaucrat in Washington, an ideologue in the White House, or worse, a bureaucrat with orders from a White House ideologue. But to suggest, as some news reports have, that the earmark process under the new Democratic Congress is worse than before is wrong, unsubstantiated and cynical. We wouldn’t even be having the conversation if our reforms hadn’t forced the full reporting of all earmarks, something vigorously opposed by the previous Congressional leadership....

(Rahm Emanuel, a representative from Illinois, is chairman of the House Democratic Caucus.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/24/opinion/24emanuel.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

:puke:

Just the usual Rahm bash or you actually interested in "debate"?

Instead of making your usual kneejerk post, why don't you engage what Mr. Emmanuel wrote?

For instance - are all earmarks bad? Or would you like your Representative to bring home federal money to your district? Afterall, you are paying taxes to the federal government, wouldn't you like some of it back? Or is it all or nothing for you?

Oh, my.

Ignore is your friend.

maybe it's because....

you don't have an argument outside of a kneejerk response?


why don't you answer the questions?


seriously....

that earmarks are an entrenched problem on both sides of the aisle and that Rahm is lamely trying to spin this to the DLC's advantage, as if anyone really cares about the DLC.

So, maybe your attempt to smear me is as lame as the DLC's attempt to portray earmarks as a Republican problem.

But, go for it.

you, of course, think that you're the only one "paying attention" and that your pov is the only valid one.

I think Rahm Emmanuel did a good job of explaining the Democratic position on this. You, of course, disagree - but, then again - you're not a Democrat, so that's understandable.

I'm sure that when SF elects a Green, he/she will gladly eschew earmarks. That's wonderful. I hope some of it comes Denver's way.

lol

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

are you at the right website?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

then address some of the points made. I fail to see a problem with Congress being permitted to direct a small percentage of spending to programs or items it deems worthy as long as full disclosure is made. Do you really think the executive branch is the fount of all wisdom?

the level of corruption we have now.

there are all kinds of ways to get around that. Have someone else author your earmark.

There are too many back rubs in Congress as it is. We're basically setting people up to fail, imho.

However, this makes sense, as long as every one gets time to look this stuff over. Sunshine is the best answer to many of DCs problems.

because she doesn't trust this guy and what he said. Well, isn't this the guy who said yesterday that things are improving in Iraq to the point that dems need to quit bitching about setting timelines and getting out?

And as for 'public' debate on earmarks. Let's go back to the Nancy and Harry press conference where the giddily announced that the had reached a 'trade deal' with the bush administration. Have we ever heard any of the details of this 'trade deal'? Hell no. Did we know they were secretly conspiring with the administration on a 'trade deal'? Hell no.

Did the dems withhold the funding for the unwinnable war that this guy said is now going so swimmingly after two days being in Iraq? Hell no. They spent two lousy days there and I don't think it was dressed up in armor (what armor they have) riding around on a humvee, or walking down the streets of Baghdad carrying a rifle surrounded by the citizens of a country that hate us for bombing their five thousand year old civilization into a pile of rubble.

Have they done anything other than hold 'hearings' that go no where on ANY AND ALL of the issues they were sent to Washington to deal with? Hell no.

They were elected based on specific issues, the 'war' in Iraq being the main issue. Repbulican corruption the second. The selling out of the people in our nation another with the loss of jobs to outsourcing. The destruction of our environment another. Everything is just the same as it was before the elections. The things they have 'changed' are not the big issues they were elected to change. They have a very noticable attitude that it's not the people who sent them to Washington who's opinions matter, it's their opinions that should determine their actions.

I have been strictly a democratic voter all my life. I've never missed an election, and I don't intend to miss any in the future. But I can damn sure tell you that this is not the democratic party that I grew up and grew 'old' with. This party used to stand for the 'people' that voted for them. They used to fight for what they believed in and what was right and what was best for this country and whatever it took to defend the Constitution of the United States, not a party of thugs led by a chickenshit coward who went AWOL from a cushy spot in the Texas Air National Guard. This guy (Emmanuel) is not a 'democrat'. He is an opportunist and everything that he's said lately has given more support the the corrupt and administration that's brought this country to its knees than the people that sent him to Washington to stop those thugs. Just like my 'democratic' senator, Ben Nelson.

this article is about earmarks. Emmanuel makes some good points, IMO. Why don't you address them? Do you want to get rid of them completely? Nebraska, afterall, gets more back in federal funding than it pays in. Most red states do.

a reform. And / but there are many ways to get around that. For example, I can ask paulk to author my earmark in exchange for a favor down the road, right? :shrug:

We need to get rid of them. They invite corruption. And no amount of lipstick on this pig will change that as far as I can see.

What am I missing, in your opinion?

more open to public scrutiny. People are going to find ways around things no matter what. It's the nature of the beast.

At least the changes Emmanuel talks about put the process more out into the open.

I think we have a real fundamental difference on human nature here... you believe the govt can be used to ... legislate morality, for want of a better way to put it. That the govt should not only be the arbiter of what is moral and right, but should be the enforcer. You want a perfect world, where everyone behaves in a way that meets your approval - and when it doesn't work that way (and it never can) you get pissed at the govt for not living up to your expectations.

I don't believe that - I believe that the best a govt can do is to level the playing field.

not because of it.

Let's get rid of earmarks AND Rahm. Vote him out and we have less problems. And before you go there, no, I'm not a libertarian, I'm a democrat.