Who'd of thought

[DOGS THAT BARK]

even A.P. isn't holding back on this one

Democrats hide pet projects from voters

By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 5 minutes ago

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

 

[The Sponge]

even A.P. isn't holding back on this one

Democrats hide pet projects from voters

By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 5 minutes ago

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

Just curious since it always seems the democrats want to spend money right here at home, will you be doing this kind of post until the repubs get back in power? Im not to sure why spending never bothered you for six years as the debt and deficits have soared. Let them spend and maybe we can have something to show for it instead of the trillion the repubs wasted and we have nothing but horror to show for it. Would you rather them spend it on tax breaks for the oil companies whic comes right out of your pocket and effects you but you are to blind to notice thi?. Why is it okay for Republicans to just open up your wallet and take what they want and you get back complete crap for what they just took?:shrug:

 

[Chadman]

Just like they didn't hide the record highs in the stock market and positive economic news as you tried to make a case for last week...and was proven in another A.P.-based thread. And so it goes...keep up the good work, comrade.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Earmark Reform

Despite promises to reform the earmark system ? in which lawmakers request funds for specific projects back home ? House Democrats have come up with a way to make the process more secretive than it is now.

Instead of putting earmarks in bills during the committee process when they can be discussed, Appropriations Chairman David Obey has ordered that the requests not be added until bills are in House-Senate Conference ? an eleventh hour, often closed door process that will keep the earmarks from being debated.

When asked about the inevitable criticism the move will receive from Republicans and others ? Obey told The Washington Post ? "I don't give a damn if people criticize me or not."

 

[Chadman]

To be fair, I don't like the sound of this plan. I think you are fine in bringing it up...if they veer back into the status quo (or worse), that is a bad thing.

 

[kosar]

This probably wouldn't be worthy of mention if the Dems hadn't rolled into the majority squawking about cracking down on earmarks. This benefits the republican earmark kings as much as the dems, but the hypocrisy falls squarely on the dems.

They wanted to claim to be the party that puts an end to it, or at least limit it, and now this.

Reminds me of how the republicans claim to be the party of fiscal responsibility, family values, tough and smart regarding national security, when anybody with half a brain can see right through that, too.

 

[The Sponge]

Veto Clash Likely on Budget Bills
By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer
1 hour ago

WASHINGTON - Democrats are pressing ahead with long-sought budget hikes for domestic programs but are running into veto threats from President Bush, who's trying to regain his footing on spending.

Total increases for domestic programs now exceed $27 billion after House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., tapped defense and foreign aid accounts to supplement funding hikes included in a Democratic budget outline passed last month.

The developments come as the Appropriations panel was poised to approve the first of 12 spending bills for the budget year beginning Oct. 1, a $36.3 billion homeland security measure that boosts such spending by almost 14 percent over figures approved last year.

The 12 bills fund the approximately one-third of the budget that Congress passes each year, but the White House is promising vetoes of spending measures exceeding Bush's budget. White House budget director Rob Portman signaled Tuesday that Bush will veto the homeland security measure, as well as an even more generous bill funding veterans health programs and construction at military bases.

"There have to be some reasonable limits and we think (Democrats) have exceeded those reasonable limits," Portman said. "If bills like these were presented to the president, we would be forced to veto them."

Bush has had uneven success so far in his dealings with the Democratic-controlled Congress on spending. Most recently, Democrats added $17 billion to an Iraq war funding bill, money not sought by Bush, despite his veto threats against "excess and extraneous" spending. The outcome dismayed GOP conservatives, though it was largely overshadowed by a battle over Democrats' efforts to impose a timeline on the Iraq war.

But Bush promises to gain more leverage against the round of 2008 appropriations bills, which will consume much of Congress' time and attention well into the fall. In the end, Bush is likely to have to accept some spending above his request.

For Democrats, the upcoming budget round provides an opportunity to boost domestic programs they believe Bush has shortchanged. Education, health, homeland security and veterans programs would get especially generous increases.

Even though the Democratic budget plan last month _ a nonbinding blueprint that sets overall limits on spending _ promised to fully fund Bush's double-digit increases in the Pentagon budget, Appropriations panel Democrats shifted $3.5 billion from Bush's defense request to domestic programs.

That's a less than 1 percent trim, but Bush' smaller request for foreign aid and the State Department would absorb a 2 percent cut _ while still receiving a healthy increase over current levels.

The homeland security budget would increase by about 14 percent over current levels and includes big increases for bomb detectors at airports while doubling grants to state and local governments for upgrading security for mass transit systems and at vulnerable ports. Those figures don't account for more than $1 billion in homeland security money approved two weeks ago as part of the Iraq funding bill.
On Wednesday, the Appropriations panel is to take up a $31.6 billion measure funding energy programs and Army Corps of Engineers water projects, as well as a $64.7 billion bill awarding huge increases for veterans health care and military base construction.

 

[smurphy]

White House budget director Rob Portman signaled Tuesday that Bush will veto the homeland security measure, as well as an even more generous bill funding veterans health programs and construction at military bases.

Wow. So Bush is "playing politics" with our homeland security and veterans.:nono:

 

[Chadman]

Yeah, well as we've all learned...controlling spending and smaller government is only important if it's stuff you don't care about personally, nor you or your financial supporters will directly benefit financially from.

We must keep perspective here. They do what they can for "people."