Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

36k pork requests hidden deliberately by Dems (spin) OR is it that the HAC Committe is overwhelmed?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
WePurrsevere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-03-07 06:58 AM
Original message
36k pork requests hidden deliberately by Dems (spin) OR is it that the HAC Committe is overwhelmed?
Is Obey really doing this to "hide" it deliberately as this AP writer insinuates? Or... is it as Obey said, because the committee is overwhelmed with so many? With 36,000 I can certainly see that quite easily, What gets me is we all know darn well that not ALL "pork" requests are by Dems. x( I wonder how many (what percent) of those 36,000 earmarks are Dem vs Rep I also wonder how many earmarks are the 'norm"? :shrug: ("Liberal Media" my bonnie backside:grr:)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/03/AR2007060300248.html

Democrats Hide Pet Projects From Voters

By ANDREW TAYLOR
The Associated Press
Sunday, June 3, 2007; 7:20 AM
<snip>
Rather than including specific pet projects, grants and contracts in legislation as it is being written, Democrats are following an order by the House Appropriations Committee chairman to keep the bills free of such earmarks until it is too late for critics to effectively challenge them.

Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., says those requests for dams, community grants and research contracts for favored universities or hospitals will be added to spending measures in the fall. That is when House and Senate negotiators assemble final bills.

<snip>

As a result, most lawmakers will not get a chance to oppose specific projects as wasteful or questionable when the spending bills for various agencies get their first votes in the full House in June.

<snip>

Obey insists he is reluctantly taking the step because Appropriations Committee members and staff have not had enough time to fully review the 36,000 earmark requests that have flooded the committee.

What Obey is doing runs counter to new rules that Democrats promised would make such spending decisions more open.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Vinca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-03-07 07:20 AM
Response to Original message
1. It's at this point the 2 parties merge into a money fest.
They all have to bring home the bacon to get the votes. Same old, same old.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-03-07 07:48 AM
Response to Original message
2. "i`ll accept your bridge -if you accept my milk subsidy"
that`s the way it works. if one brings home the money then one gets reelected and that`s the nature of the beast. what we forget is that 95% of the earmarks may do some good for the citizens of this country. spending close 50% to our federal budget to murder people really does`t benefit anyone at all
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Telly Savalas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-03-07 09:28 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. But there's an opportunity cost for every earmark.
That bridge and milk subsidy might be nice, but it could be the case that the money would be better spent on a bus system and a rural health clinic. But since transparency and accountability take the back seat to "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours", there aren't any mechanisms in place to properly prioritize our needs. The Democrats are the damn majority party so they ought to be putting such procedures in place. Or are we going to apply that lame "we don't have the votes" excuse to this situation too?

Whining that the HAC is overwhelmed by 36,000 earmark requests is weak. If this number is on par with previous years, then they should have made sure the proper staff to handle the volume of work. If the number of earmarks has seen a serious increase, then they should crucify the GOP on it if that's the source of the new earmarks, or tell their rank and file to get their shit together if its Democratic earmarks.

I'm tired of the fucking excuses. This isn't the school board of Podunksville, this is the legislative body of the most powerful nation in history and its members are professionals. They need to start doing their jobs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
INdemo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-03-07 08:05 AM
Response to Original message
3. The way this article is written all the "pork" is added to bill by
Edited on Sun Jun-03-07 08:17 AM by INdemo
Democrats..it mentions just 3 projects and I think with a little research one would find there is plenty of Republican requests too.
(yes I saw your comment) Im going to research this bill and see just how many Repuke projects are in it.
But of course the intention of this article was to pin all the pork spending on the Democrats and give the corporate media a talking point to spin against the Democrats
And so far the author has met that objective.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WePurrsevere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-04-07 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. That is how it came across & was meant to I'm sure. I'd be very interested in what you find out.
I find "pork" an interesting concept. Some of it I truly understand and support but some is just so wild (like Steven's bridge to no where). It wouldn't be quite so bad if there was totally open disclosure of exactly what is asked for, who asks for it, how much it will cost, why it was needed/granted and done so that it can be considered and debated properly. Perhaps set limits on how much each rep can ask for too... 36,000 (and how much $$$) seems like an awful lot.

FWIW if you didn't see this show on "pork" on PBS last year I thought it was very good and certainly got me thinking more then ever about this topic: http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcriptNOW207_full.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-03-07 11:59 AM
Response to Original message
5. 35,000 earmarks by the GOP not passed in the last budget are no doubt the bulk of it n/t
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-04-07 06:21 PM
Response to Original message
7. that speaks more to the amount of earmarks
Edited on Mon Jun-04-07 06:22 PM by AtomicKitten
... than anything else to me ... if the Dems are overwhelmed by the amount of earmarks, that means there are too damn many earmarks, or at least put them to good use and bribe the Republicans to vote for stopping the war.

One way or the other, Democrats must BE the change we seek.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 06:16 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC