Nussle is against earmarks....except for when he's for them!

:eyes: Here we go again...

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060210/NEWS10/602100347/1011

Nussle targets earmarks in time of tight budgets
Meanwhile, Harkin defends the local-project spending, when properly disclosed.


Washington, D.C. - Rep. Jim Nussle has declared war on earmarks - money set aside for special local projects traditionally obtained and celebrated by members of Congress, including in Iowa.

The Iowa Republican, who's also a candidate for governor, said at a hearing of the House Budget Committee that he's on the warpath against new earmarks at a time of tight budgets. The president earlier this week proposed a $2.7 trillion budget that slashes dozens of domestic programs.

<snip>

Nussle's chief of staff, Chris Bliley, said Nussle "certainly stands for Iowa priorities," and is committed to advancing initiatives for the state that he supports. "His job is to present various options to formulate a responsible budget plan," said Bliley.

Nussle will not give up on pursuing Iowa earmarks unless all earmarks are eliminated, he said.

There is at least one "earmark" that Nussle was partially responsible for getting here in the First District which is sorely needed. That is federal funding for another bridge across the Mississippi River. This is not wasteful. If anyone thinks otherwise, try driving across our existing bridges during rush hour. I'm pretty sure Lane Evans had something to do with this as well, as he is the representative on the Illinois side of the Quad-Cities.

I am just asking, not criticizing your point. I know the highway money is distributed in the transportation bill with a lot of projects specifically mentioned, but I am not clear if that is really earmarking or not. Aren't most of those projects specifically listed in the bill that is voted on? If so, I think that would be different than earmarking, where things are added onto another bill without specific approval of the full House and Senate. But maybe my understanding of the process is not correct.

You make the point, though, that not all pork is bad. Some of it, probably a minor fraction, is needed. And the transportation expenditures are mostly good, as they collect taxes on gasoline, etc., and spend them on improving our infrastructure.

Telling him that w/out earmarks he could kiss the bridge good-bye!