DEMS to Wipe Out Pork Projects

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Another big thumbs up from me to the democrats, who are doing the right thing for the American people, addressing one of the main complaints by voters (and many MadJackers). The only drawback to this plan, is that it still evidently allows this corrupt administration to reward those they want to with our tax dollars. Darn democrats seem to think it's more important to fund health research, education and local law enforcement agencies (that were cut by the current administration). Obviously, the democrats are "Weak on Pork."

--------------------------------

Dems to Wipe Out Pet Projects in Bills
Dec 11 8:08 PM US/Eastern

By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer, WASHINGTON

Democrats tidying up a cluster of unfinished spending bills dumped on them by departing Republican leaders in Congress will start by removing billions of dollars in lawmakers' pet projects next month.

The move, orchestrated by the incoming chairmen of the House and Senate Appropriations committees, could prove politically savvy even as it proves unpopular with other members of Congress, who as a group will lose thousands of so-called earmarks.

"There will be no congressional earmarks," Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., and Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., said Monday in a statement announcing their plans, which were quickly endorsed by incoming Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and soon-to-be Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D- Nev.

Earmarks are congressionally mandated projects such as grants for local governments, home-state universities and hospitals, roads, bridges and flood control construction, and economic development efforts not included in the president's spending proposals.

Often called "pork" by critics, their sponsors defend inserting the projects into spending bills by claiming that, as elected representatives, they know more about the needs of people in their states and government programs than the president or bureaucrats in the executive branch.

Such projects have exploded in number under GOP control of Congress over the last 12 years and at the same time have spawned a boom on Washington's K Street lobbying corridor, where consultants earn big fees by helping outsiders navigate the system.

Democrats, facing a huge bind in having to complete nine unfinished budget bills at the same time they want to advance their own agenda, say they now plan to advance a single spending bill covering 13 Cabinet departments. The unappealing alternative was a time- and energy-consuming legislative slog just as President Bush's new budget and a $100 billion-plus Iraq funding bill are due to arrive on Capitol Hill.

"It is important that we clear the decks quickly so that we can get to work on the American people's priorities, the President's anticipated war funding request and a new budget," Obey and Byrd said.

The bill should encounter little resistance from Republicans and the White House since it will stick within President Bush's tight budget limits for domestic programs.

The move won applause from a Senate GOP conservative who worked to block Republicans in his own party from passing a huge, pork-laden spending bill in their final days controlling Congress

"I'm glad the Democrats are taking a time-out on pork-barrel spending," said Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C. "It's refreshing to hear them say they are going to reform the earmarking process to make it transparent and accountable."


Congress earned a black eye over mandating project-specific appropriations when former Rep. Randy Cunningham, R-Calif., admitted taking $2.4 million in bribes in exchange for earmarking projects to defense contractors. Cunningham, who held seats on the House intelligence and appropriations committees, is now serving an eight- year federal prison sentence.

Obey and Byrd said lawmakers could re-apply for home-state projects next year when Congress turns to the fiscal 2008 budget cycle _ after reforms of the earmarking process are put in place.

They said some of the money set aside in the pending bills for home- state earmarks will be shifted to programs Democrats feel have been shortchanged by Bush's budget, such as health research, education and grants to local law enforcement agencies.

Just how much money would be redirected is unclear. Projects such as levees and federal grants to housing and transit authorities will still be funded, but the administration will determine how to spend pools of money that Congress usually divides up, specifying the amounts for particular projects.

Obey and Byrd said their plan "provides the administration far too much latitude in spending the people's money. But that is a temporary price that we will pay" to be able to devote time and energy to Bush's Iraq funding request and next year's budget.

Returning authority to the White House to specify which projects get how much money raises the risk of an even more closed process. The administration could use the process to reward allies and punish critics. Veteran appropriations committee members _ the "Old Bulls" of Congress _ also could lobby over the phone for earmarks even as they leave them out of the upcoming spending bill.

"We will certainly work with the agencies and the Hill to ensure there are no major disruptions to essential government service," said Sean Kevelighan, spokesman for the White House budget office.
 

flapjack

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 13, 2004
1,244
7
0
Obey and Byrd said lawmakers could re-apply for home-state projects next year when Congress turns to the fiscal 2008 budget cycle _ after reforms of the earmarking process are put in place.

They said some of the money set aside in the pending bills for home- state earmarks will be shifted to programs Democrats feel have been shortchanged by Bush's budget, such as health research, education and grants to local law enforcement agencies.

Just how much money would be redirected is unclear. Projects such as levees and federal grants to housing and transit authorities will still be funded, but the administration will determine how to spend pools of money that Congress usually divides up, specifying the amounts for particular projects.

Translation: "We control congress now, we'll be handing out the pork"

(But, we'll hop on our high horses first and score a few points with the public before we start diverting the money to OUR pork).
Hypocrisy at its finest. :mj07:
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,485
161
63
Bowling Green Ky
Chad I will give Dem Hoyer kudos for intiating plan to have congress have 5 day work week instead of 3. Took some balls considering he'll take heat from both sides probably.

On pork issue I hope your right but have my doubts--sounds like rebs previous Contract with America--but once they are in control they forget what got them there.
 

The Sponge

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2006
17,263
97
0
Chad I will give Dem Hoyer kudos for intiating plan to have congress have 5 day work week instead of 3. Took some balls considering he'll take heat from both sides probably.

On pork issue I hope your right but have my doubts--sounds like rebs previous Contract with America--but once they are in control they forget what got them there.

Id rather have them cut two days and have them work one. The one party has no ideas and dogs party has all bad ideas. It would be nice to see these pricks thrown into social security like the rest of us. It would be also nice for them to pick up their own vehicle and their own car insurance. Im kinda tired of paying for mine and theirs.
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Translation: "We control congress now, we'll be handing out the pork"

(But, we'll hop on our high horses first and score a few points with the public before we start diverting the money to OUR pork).
Hypocrisy at its finest. :mj07:

Weak translation. I think it says a lot when people cannot give any credit whatsoever for a positive thing, by deflecting the reality to something status quo.

At least they got on the horse, which is more than YOU can say for the republicans have done in, what, FOREVER? The Dems did a good thing, and you can't stand it. What's hypocritical is to say something is bad, when it clearly is a good thing, because the party you support did not do it. At least they did one good, positive thing, and are answering the call of the people who put them in office - and if you weren't so jaded by party support, you could admit it. What they do in the future, remains to be seen. Actions speak louder than unfounded criticism.
 

flapjack

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 13, 2004
1,244
7
0
Weak translation. I think it says a lot when people cannot give any credit whatsoever for a positive thing, by deflecting the reality to something status quo.

At least they got on the horse, which is more than YOU can say for the republicans have done in, what, FOREVER? The Dems did a good thing, and you can't stand it. What's hypocritical is to say something is bad, when it clearly is a good thing, because the party you support did not do it. At least they did one good, positive thing, and are answering the call of the people who put them in office - and if you weren't so jaded by party support, you could admit it. What they do in the future, remains to be seen. Actions speak louder than unfounded criticism.

Who said I supported the Republicans? Clinton was the last person I voted for president in a general election (I did vote for a rep in the primaries when I voted for McCain vs Bush 6 yrs ago). To read this rosy, "rah-rah" look how holy we are article and not see through it or read between the lines is naive. Go back and read the paragraphs I highlighted and I think the real story becomes clear. The pork the Rep's put into the bill is being taken out due to the moral outrage of the Dems, yet in the same story they are talking about how they WILL have to put in some really necessary local Dem projects and they will consider them in the future as well - of course those projects will only be in our nations best interest! Just politics as usual. Our politicians should be considered guilty until proven innocent as far as I am concerned not vice versa. So, yeah, it would be great if you are right and the democrats just want to be good guys and make sure everything is fair. I'd also like to live in in Happyland in my gum drop house on Lollypop Lane. Dont buy it for one second. As for the Rep's not getting on the their high horse and trying to take that moral high ground as you say, I would say - what are reading every day? That is their MO. The more they talk about morals or it being the "right thing to do" in regards to a bill, the more I question what the real motivation is. What I "Can't Stand" is hypocrisy!
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Yeah, I thought about the tone of my post later, and it wasn't fair as far as comments about your support. I apologize for that. I know nothing about your politics and my comments were not appropriate.

I do still think the steps they are taking sends a positive message. I don't care if it IS political in nature...politics put them in this position and it is refreshing to see them tackle reforms to special interests, pork, ethics, etc., immediately. The first issue they chose to address was ethics reform, and I think that is commendable. The second is eliminating special interest projects, which cross party lines, also commendable. Taking tax dollars away from payback projects on a local and state level is a tremendous first step. It remains to be seen what they do moving forward.

And as I mentioned, I feel that putting money in the areas they highlight, while being some of the cornerstones of the party, are arguably very important for our country. How can you argue with swapping pork for law enforcement funding? I dunno, I just get tired of the tireless negativity across the board. Credit where it is due might breed more of this. I plan on sending e-mails to the dems responsible commending them, and asking for more of this.
 

dr. freeze

BIG12 KING
Forum Member
Aug 25, 2001
7,170
8
0
Mansion
hopefully welfare will be the first pork program that is eliminated

followed by Medicare and Social Security

then eliminate the department of education and reduce every other Bureaucratic agency by 90%
 

The Sponge

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2006
17,263
97
0
hopefully welfare will be the first pork program that is eliminated

followed by Medicare and Social Security

then eliminate the department of education and reduce every other Bureaucratic agency by 90%

Hopefully School loans get thrown out first. Just think Freeze you couldn't do it on your own with your money so you had to run to a gov't program to try an succeed in life. Im sure this program is okay with you since you abused it because you couldn't cut it on your own with your own savings. SS is a good program especially for older woman who's husbands were the only bread winner and left them high and dry. It still is a good program if only your neocons buddies knew how to balance a budget instead of running up huge debts time and time again. As for Welfare? Tell that to the guy who was born with an ailment or mentally challenged. Handjob, use your own money for your own schooling because im tired of fronting it for you.
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
Watch Bush just to be dirty veto much of there work.
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Yeah, those student LOAN programs are the root of our problems. Essentially make sure that only those that can afford to go to school can go to school. I still don't understand the logic that investing in loan programs that legally must be repaid, with interest, which should make the country more money is a bad entitlement program. Grants? I see that argument against, although I don't agree with it. Heck, the democratic plan to eliminate selective local pork projects could go a long way to paying for this program and many more.

For my money, student loans are good for a progressive country. Welfare can be a very positive program when limited and when abuses are prevented and stopped. Medicare is a good option for those that don't make a ton of money for whatever reason. Social Security is a program that has worked for years, and continues to make life better for most - unless the conservatives raid the money, that is. Reform is probably necessary, in looking at the basic numbers, which won't work in the long run.

Just like you, Freeze, go right after the programs the wealthy (whether they worked hard and earned it or not) don't need or use, and keep the gap as wide as possible so that you can have more. You sure as Heck don't complain about the good life and surrounding you live in, I would assume, that taxes help provide a big part of.

Of course, you never have answered my question about what is a fair tax rate to pay - it's always just too high for you and those around you.

Have you stopped trying to make a better life for yourself due to the "oppressive" tax situation? I sincerely doubt it, and that remains the biggest load of crap you still come up with, IMO. And that is saying something.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top