Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Bye-bye earmarks… for now.

By

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid this afternoon launched into a vociferous defense of congressional earmarks, branding Republicans “hypocrites” and pushing back against President Obama.

Faced with the prospects of having to literally read the full 1924 pages of an omnibus spending bill, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) chose on Thursday night to pull the measure in favor of a continuing resolution to keep government funding.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. With defeat on the omnibus, however, came some promise for Democrats. In pulling the spending bill from consideration, Reid announced that he was filing cloture on two of the party’s other major priorities: the DREAM Act, which would grant pathways to citizenship for children of illegal immigrants, and the stand-alone repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, the military law that restricts openly gay members from serving.

    Votes on those measures, a leadership aide told The Huffington Post, would now come on Saturday morning. DREAM will go first, followed by DADT. The former has, it is believed, less of a shot at passage than the latter,

    Once the Senate casts those Saturday votes, members will return to debating the START nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

    <

    p>Funny how productive these people can be… When they want to be. Jerks!

  2. Let’s have a thought experiment. Let’s imagine that Congress is filled with wise legislators with hearts of gold with each an expert on the district or state he or she represents. In that case, earmarks could be a very good thing. How’s the White House to keep track of universities in Iowa and special industries in New Mexico? And why should the executive branch make all the specific spending decisions?

    <

    p>In our less perfect legislature, earmarks do not have a substantial impact on the overall budget. Some cause waste, but some not. Eliminating them makes a great slogan, but isn’t transparency, not sloganeering, what we need instead?

    • With the disclaimer that I don’t fully understand how earmarks work, why do we want to give 435 people unchecked authority to shovel money into their districts? Doesn’t that turn the government into an ATM?

      <

      p>The White House has OMB, which I once heard has 300 full-time analysts. If 300 analysts can’t keep track of what is spent by 535 Members of Congress …

      <

      p>I think we have more transparency into legislation than we do into spending. Picking on laundry lists of obscure federal research grants, like some people do, is reductive and misleading. But establishing the reform of banning earmarks, and thereby forcing members to defend their choices, sees pretty appropriate to me.

      <

      p>

      • In the state, an earmark cannot be ‘enforced’.  For example, a legislator gets an earmark to build a dance pavillion in a state park.  The state park in question opposes this, but it passes anyway.  All that happens at the STATE level is that there is no pavillion built, but the money committed to that cannot be spent by the agency on anything else either.  The ‘binding’ of the funds ends with the fiscal year, and usually funds winds up in a supplemental budget.

        <

        p>But we have no continuing resolution process, etc.  What happens to a FEDERAL left unspent?

      • Well, we do give those 435 people the authority to write our laws. And sometimes, in the case of expensive and unneeded military hardware (Star Wars anyone?), that can be just as inefficient as earmarks.

        • But there are, in theory, checks and balances built into the legislative process: the president’s signature, and judicial review by the Supreme Court.

          <

          p>What’s the check on an earmark? When the branch with power of the purse is opening its purse at the whim of individual members … I don’t think there is one.

    • should spend no money on that university in Iowa or Special Industry in New Mexico.  Perhaps that’s not the role of the Federal government in the first place.

  3. <

    p>HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!  You’ve been played for a fool yet again, John, and you’re playing your part quite well…

    • How many other instances in our lives do we take this stance?

      <

      p>- How many people say they want higher taxes, but pay the lower tax rates? Are all these people hypocrites?

      <

      p>- Your family wants to go out to dinner and they want Chinese. You argue how sick and tired you are of Chinese and want Italian but they family picks Chinese. Do you stay home?

      <

      p>- If the government had a new program to send home a $1,000 check to every household in America I would be obstreperously against it BUT if Congress decided to do it against my will, I would want my check.

      <

      p>- You can be against public nudity but not look away when a naked voluptuous woman walks by.

      <

      p>I think you can be against the idea of something (earmarks) but still enjoy the benefits of it.

      <

      p>I will agree that you are a hypocrite if you are publicly against earmarks, but vote for earmarks. But only if there was a way to separate an earmark vote on its own merits as opposed to be lumped in with another bill.

      <

      p>Shame on Obama for campaigning so stridently against earmarks and barely muttering a word against them ever since. He has been lame on this issue!

      • I think you can be against the idea of something (earmarks) but still enjoy the benefits of it.

        <

        p>That’s true, if you work for a company and think it shouldn’t have a Christmas party because people got laid off and we should save money for next year, but then you go and have a good time anyway.

        <

        p>If you’re a member of Congress and are against earmarks, then you should be working to end them. Anything less is hypocrisy.

        <

        p>By the way I don’t recall Obama mentioning earmarks, but maybe he did. I think of that as McCain’s issue.

        <

        p>

      • You’d only think it was hypocritical if it was Democrats doing it – since it’s your side of the aisle, you’ll excuse anything they do!  Like I said, they’re playing you for a fool, and you’re going to win an Oscar for your portrayal.

        • Is that what you call it when you support someone or some group and they don’t do what they said they were going to do?

          <

          p>So please explain…

          <

          p>GITMO
          DADT
          Illegal Wiretapping
          Trying KSM
          Tax cuts for the “rich”
          Revolving door from WH to Wall St

          <

          p>Who is Obama’s fool?

          <

          p>Let talk more in 2011 after Republicans rule the House.

          • That’s what I call it when you support someone against your own best interests.  Republicans are absolutely terrible for the economy, John, and you swallow all their bullshit hook, line and sinker.  Here’s the proof of their economic ineptitude:

            <

            p>

            As of Friday, a $10,000 investment in the S.& P. stock market index* would have grown to $11,733 if invested under Republican presidents only, although that would be $51,211 if we exclude Herbert Hoover’s presidency during the Great Depression. Invested under Democratic presidents only, $10,000 would have grown to $300,671 at a compound rate of 8.9 percent over nearly 40 years.

            <

            p>Here’s a handy chart from the same article:

            <

            p>

            <

            p>Source:  http://www.nytimes.com/interac…

            <

            p>You claim to care about the economy, John, but you support Republicans every time and you refuse to budge.  You vote against your own best interests, along with the rest of your partisan brethren – that’s why I say you’re being played for a fool.  Think about it, John – in 1932, at the height of the Great Depression, 40% of the country still voted for Hoover.  That’s you and your ilk, voting against their own best interests.

            <

            p>As to Obama, I’m very disappointed in him – I believe he hasn’t gone nearly far enough in trying to fix the problems we face.  Will I support him for re-election?  Depends on who runs against him – if it’s Palin, you better believe I’ll be voting for Obama!

            • But do you seriously call someone a fool “That’s what I call it when you support someone against your own best interests. “? Is that what is suppose to drive people to support a person? I would say people are “noble” to support something they believe in “even if” it goes against their best interests.

              • Please give us examples of what your best interests are, and show how they are supported by Republican policies.  Destroying the economy, time after time, is not in anyone’s best interest, John – not yours, not mine, not millionaires or billionaires, not anyone.  Continuing to vote them in is foolish, and downright idiotic.

                • In previous comments JohnD has said, or at least strongly implied, that he makes more than 250K, thus Republicans have his interests at heart by wanting to extend his Bush tax rates.

                • Whether I was the bag boy at Purity Supreme, undercoating cars as they came off the ships in South Boston or digging graves at Mount Hope cemetery, I was the lone Republican in my family (all of them Democrats). So it doesn’t matter whether I was making $1.75/hour or $100K per year, I believe in Republican values. I want to keep more of what I make, provide a safety net but not cradle to grave entitlements creating a culture of dependence. I want high quality education system but not a bottomless bit sucking money down the toilet to a population who doesn’t care about learning.

                  <

                  p>The Obama tax cuts were for ALL of us even though you and others can’t stop obsessing about the upper income’s share. It’s almost funny to hear people saying things like “We can’t afford this tax cut for the rich… blah blah blah” when the fact is the tax cut for upper income earners was a small piece of the entire bill ($70 billion of $850 billion). Hey, can we afford the other $780 billion? People are so blind with rage against successful people that they can’t see their hypocrisy unless they are just stupid. I was against all the tax rates being extended and wish they had let them all expire, all $850 billion, and I said so many times right here.

                • I want the best economic policy.  Besides the Democratic proposal all along was to continue EVERYBODY’s tax cuts on their first 250K.  I believe in the Truman quote that if you want to live like a Republican vote Democratic.  I also think there is some merit to have let them all expire.  If you’re making minimum wage you would get to make AND keep more under Democrats than Republicans hands down.

                • Destroying the economy? We want honest government, we want security at our borders, we want businesses to employ people and to make profits. We want people to do well because of their efforts and not because of government handouts. Too many people, mostly Democrats, have this absurdly twisted image of what Republicans are all about. You stereotype us as greedy, rich, racist, xenophibic, homophobic heartless bastards. I know a lot of Republicans and I can tell you we are not these things.

                  <

                  p>BTW, if “Destroying the economy, time after time, is not in anyone’s best interest, John – not yours, not mine, not millionaires or billionaires, not anyone.  “ is what Republicans are doing, whom are they doing it for since you claim it isn’t even for the rich? Even KAOS, the nemesis of CONTROL had some beneficiary.  

                • …but too often they just hoard the profits.  I’d be a supply-sider in a heartbeat if any experience or history showed that it worked the way it was supposed to.  I actually do want to have a more collective welfare state where everyone gets taken care of without judgement.  While some European nations sometimes struggle I think Britain even under “conservative” governments (defined still to the left of many Americans) has found the right balance.

                  <

                  p>There are probably plenty of registered Republicans who don’t fit the stereotype you accuse us of having, but their “leaders” demogogue to the lowest common denominator.  Interestingly, your comment history would lead a reader to believe that you DO fit the stereotype you describe.

                • businesses are not in business to employ people. That never has been nor will it ever be a “goal” of a business. If you open up a small sandwich place, you have a list of things you “have to” do such as borrow the money, buy the equipment, buy the food, get the licenses, hire people… and start to try to make money (after paying off all your bills). I don’t think you will find any business plan which says their goal is to hire people. If you could sell your sandwiches without hiring people (like family businesses try to do), you would since it helps you stay in business.

                  <

                  p>Stop thinking that businesses are in business to “employ people”, they aren’t!

                  <

                  p>Aside from my hyperbole, do you really think this characterizes me?

                  <

                  p>

                  You stereotype us as greedy, rich, racist, xenophobic, homophobic heartless bastards.

                • “…we want businesses to employ people…”?  However, if we accept that the point of business isn’t to hire people then it’s all the more reason to extend jobless benefits, give incentives to keep jobs here, etc.

                • there are things I wish would happen and then there is what happens. Of course I want Americans back to work, in record numbers. I want people to be working, be happy, support the economy… but that doesn’t mean I now or ever will think that part of a business’s responsibility is to hire people or create jobs. I like the idea of incentives to keep jobs here in the US, as long as they aren’t abused or misused. Remember that competition usually improves everybody’s game (example, Japanese cars vs. American cars of the 70’s, 80’s, 90’s…).

                  <

                  p>We cannot have jobless benefits ad infinitum, it will be yet another entitlement bankrupting our country.

                • You accept things as they are, while I’m willing to do what is necessary to make things as they should be.  If you want people back to work, then get behind programs and policies designed to do that rather than resigning yourself to that’s the way it is.

                • But I see things as they are and not as I hope they are.

                  <

                  p>Look at Walmart… I like Walmart and their business plan. I have no problem with it whatsoever. They are the largest non-government employer in America. Tens of millions of Americans shop their daily and their numbers keep getting better and better, much to the chagrin of many progressives and BMGers. Those are all facts, whether you or I like it or not.

                  <

                  p>I wish someone would open an alternative to Walmart with a similar business plan, but with the intention of selling goods made exclusively in the US. My guess is it wouldn’t work because we would have to pay so much money for our labor vs China that the t-shirts would costs $15 instead of $4.99. Americans will be a premium for American goods, but not too much of a premium and unfortunately unions have forced the textile business right out of the country.

                  <

                  p>I’ll back things, if I think they can get results.

                • But that’s exactly why government SHOULD put its massive thumb on the scale to favor the Wal-Mart alternative, so they can do right AND stay in business.  If I were to do something like that I’d start by sacraficing my own ginormous salary so I could by American and pay my labor sufficiently.  We as a society have every right to consider whether we really want a Wal-Mart driven race to the bottom, but we have to do it through the government side.  Doing it through the market side means we just buy stuff cheap without consideration for consequences.  The bottom line of social justice is at least as important as the bottom line of corporate bank accounts.  Eventually you will have to answer the question about what do we do about all those who don’t have jobs in your world where businesses hire as few people as possible.  We either protect and create jobs or we get used to having a greater part of our population on the dole.  To do neither of those is completely unacceptable social Darwinism.

                • We have a country without enough jobs but Democrats are in favor of bringing in millions of more mouths to feed, social welfare recipients, SSI customers and people to be employed… figure that one out!

              • your best interests as long term economic growth that benefits you, your family, neighbors, co-workers, community and nation. Its a much easier and more effective way of insuring your best economic interests.

                <

                p>Similarly, your personal security interests are best served by effective national security, a stable world and stable and safe community than digging a big hole in your back yard and stocking it with guns and canned food.

                • I have been in favor of a number of mortgage modification programs, Made in the US activities, neighborhood and family activities… I want what is good for us as a nation and as a people. I just happen to disagree with you and others on how best to do it AND how economically feasible to do it. You guys throw money at every problem and think it will work. You flush money down the toilet all day long. We have “aid to families” being abused by the BILLIONS. I work at a local food pantry and do you know how many times we deliver food to houses that “don’t need” the free food we deliver? It’s infuriating! But we can’t ask details about their need, they request it and we deliver. That pisses me off. We get mad and yet you guys “seem” to not care.

                  <

                  p>Republicans did not want the tax cuts to be continued for “Just” the rich, they wanted them for everyone. Republicans want much of the same thing that you want. We just differ on a few things and the methods!

                • It’s game theory.
                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P…

                  <

                  p>2 Prisoners are arrested and agree to keep quiet.
                  Option 1.  If they both keep quiet they each earn 5 points;
                  Option 2.  1 cheats and gets 10 points while the other -10;
                  Option 3.  Both cheat they each get 0.

                  <

                  p>This game as applied to economics shows mutual cooperation works best and raises everyone. There will always be the scammers, cheats and live in the moment maximize my profit this quarter thinkers, but when that thinking constitutes the majority everyone is dragged down together. The greedy along with the rest.

                  <

                  p>John Kennedy may have said it best: “Think not what your country can do for you, think what you can do for your country.”

                  <

                  p>This recent tax deal was a compromise for Option 3. We all lose.

                  <

                  p>It sounds like there may be common ground on both sides to work for goals like effective mortgage modification programs, and bringing manufacturing back to the US – Option 1 goals.  

            • It was the let’s see what happens when the “young guns” (ugh) who got elected actually do something, OR JohnT001 is right and I was just played as a fool. It’s too early now so we’ll have to wait and see what happens after they take control.

              <

              p>It should be interesting to see how things change when the Republicans control the origination of every bill and we have 47 votes in the Senate. It’s no wonder that they are trying to ram everything thru in these last few weeks.

              <

              p>I think I’ve been quite good wrt taunting.

      • I will agree that you are a hypocrite if you are publicly against earmarks, but vote for earmarks.

        <

        p>Your whole freakin’ party’s been all over FoxTass for months blasting earmarks. They publicly, piously, and pitifully VOTED TO BAN THEM. That was your old buddy Mitch McConnell (R-Woman Stomping State) so mournfully promising to lead by example.

        <

        p>What was his “example”? Vote against them in public, stick ’em in in private.

        <

        p>Word to the wise John: when FoxTass says Republicans are full of it, they probably are.

        <

        p>And where the hell are you hanging out that naked women are just walking by? An RNC fundraiser?

        <

        p>

  4. Will it include purposeless defense spending that the military doesn’t want that just happens to be done in the sponsor’s home district?  I’m guessing the answer is no.

  5. What is the argument FOR earmarks?

    <

    p>I don’t think I’ve heard one, other than variations on “Occasionally useful tool that I like when my ally uses it to support my cause.”

    <

    p>Convenience is another argument, I suppose, but I reject that premise. Congress can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants.

    • Earmarks are a process by which representatives who are in closer contact with constituents than any other part of the government bureaucracy can use government to fulfill needs.  It is a way of avoiding “one size fits all” policies, but rather allows elected officials in close contact with people “back home” to use government, or if you prefer taxpayer, money to help their district.  It is the financial aspect of the core principle of representation.

      • There is the main budget, there are supplemental budgets, and there are omnibus spending bills — all of which are cobbled together with post it notes from members thoroughly vetted through hearings and the Ways and Means Committee.

        <

        p>Spending money is what Congress does. Sure, they make laws too, but a lot of their lawmaking is to shape what will be spent, and how.

        <

        p>This is hardly a major issue, but it seems like something that could be eliminated. There are many other means of spending, or financial representation, if you will.

        <

        p>

Archives