Democrats hide pet projects from voters

By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer


WASHINGTON - After promising unprecedented openness regarding Congress' pork barrel practices, House Democrats are moving in the opposite direction as they draw up spending bills for the upcoming budget year. Democrats are sidestepping rules approved their first day in power in January to clearly identify "earmarks" — lawmakers' requests for specific projects and contracts for their states. 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 (news, bio, voting record), 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. Such requests total billions of dollars.

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. The House-Senate compromise bills due for final action in September cannot be amended and are subject to only one hour of debate, precluding challenges to individual projects.

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.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070603/ap_on_go_co/congress_pet_projects

Democrats are politicians?? OH MY GOD!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1031458

... and properly identified as a "blatant hit piece."

Do you suspect the OP realized this? My Goodness Gracious!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:wow: :scared: :scared:

ya think?:rofl:

it's a bit hard to say. Genereally, silence is interpreted as consent... and over-the-top sarcasm is a poor substitute for intellectual discourse.

comment do you want. They campaigned on reform and you can think whatever you want. The piece was simply a AP article and if you don't want to see anything posted that is not positive toward the Dems, I suggest you stick your head in the sand.

I did not comment because there was nothing to comment about. I just like to know what is being published and the bad with the good. How can you have any effect on anything if you only want to censure and see what you want to see.

So far Pelosi & Reed suck as far as I am concerned. That doesn't mean I won't change my mind but until there is improvement, that is my comment.

Also, there have been other articles about how they are not doing the reforms they said they were going to do. The previous article you mentioned did not refute anything.

And, the previous article I mentioned was identical to yours. If you really gave a damn about this subject or DU, you would have at least glanced at the threads posted in the same forum in the same 60 minute span as your posting. But then, that other thread identified your article as a shrill anti-Dem screed from a writer with a history of publishing shrill anti-Dem screeds, and that would have been contrary to your point. Right, ace?

it is bs and if I desire to post an AP article as I stated, I will.

No it was not a hit piece, only in your mind and my name is not Ace as well.

And when you post an obvious hit piece on the Dems, be prepared to hear about it. In loud, negative terms.

If your skin is so thin that you cannot bear even the thought of criticism, you have other choices open to you. But, I most certainly did not attack you personally -- you simply decided to take offense. And, for the record, if it isn't capitalized, it can't be construed as a name. Clear enough?

this was not an obvious hit piece. I guess you take anything out of the AP that you don't like as a hit piece (thin skin). If you can't take anything written you don't like, ignore it instead of being a jerk.

The nature of the article and the history of the writer are revealed quite clearly.

the article, it is very unsettling and uncomfortable what is going on after all of the campaign rhetoric.

As far as the guy who wrote the article, you can go find some who write more favorably to what you want to hear and that is ok.

Is it true, that is what is important.

You also can find the subject in other media as well, do you want to silence all of them?

Attacking me for posting an article out of the Associated Press, that is pure and simple bs.

I may not like everything I read and see either. If the writer is lying about it, he needs to be brought out & it will soon be known anyway, but if it is true, I want to know about it regardless if it is something I like or not and regardless of who wrote it.

Now I am done with this.

pork and unconstitutional legislation? Or how about that little zinger that allowed the bushes to appoint DAs without congressional approval? See, the AP can actually do investigative journalism, as long as the bushes say they can.

Of course this is thrown out there by the AP while we hear nothing about the caging lists handed over to Conyers. See that story is about actual felonies and real crimes committed by Rove and company and this story is about well... trying to get pork in bills.

The republicans over the past 6 years have raped and pillaged the essential community services benefits previously set fourth for the American Community. Taken the money and paid-off their lobbyist I think. He is only repairing the damage.

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.

Thank You Congressman Obey for you tireless work.

Gonzales asked Kyl to block the bill.

The AP is only interested in headlines if they are criticizing Dems.

Just trust them to do what's right for us...and the lobbyists.

:eyes:

NGU.

http://www.gop.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=6950
GOP.com | Republican National Committee :: $2,900,000,000,000 Budget Buster

i wonder why?