Author Topic: Democrats Freeze Earmarks for Now  (Read 1591 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Brassmask

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2600
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Democrats Freeze Earmarks for Now
« on: December 12, 2006, 12:13:38 PM »
I'm hopeful.  It's a step in the right direction.  Why didn't the GOP do this all the while they were in control?  I like what I'm seeing.



Democrats Freeze Earmarks for Now
Leaders Want Lobbying Changes Enacted

By Shailagh Murray and Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, December 12, 2006; A03



Democratic leaders declared a temporary moratorium on special-interest provisions known as earmarks as they attempt to cope with a budget crisis left by the outgoing Republican-led 109th Congress.

Congress adjourned early Saturday, having completed work on two of the 11 spending bills for the 2007 fiscal year that began Oct. 1. As a short-term fix, lawmakers extended current funding levels until Feb. 15. But the incoming Democratic chairmen of the House and Senate Appropriations committees announced yesterday that they would extend current levels until the 2008 fiscal year begins next Oct. 1.

The alternative was to attempt to finish work on the spending bills when the Democratic-led Congress convenes in January, a dreaded prospect that could have derailed Democratic legislative efforts and stirred up policy battles around the same time that President Bush is due to submit his fiscal 2008 budget to the Hill, along with a large supplemental spending request for the Iraq war.

The new chairmen, Rep. David R. Obey (Wis.) and Sen. Robert C. Byrd (W.Va.), said in a statement: "While the results will be far from ideal, this path provides the best way to dispose of the unfinished business quickly, and allow governors, state and local officials, and families to finally plan for the coming year with some knowledge of what the federal government is funding."

They also said they would place a moratorium on all earmarks until lobbying changes are enacted. Those special spending provisions included in the unfinished fiscal 2007 bills will be eligible for consideration next year, the chairmen said, subject to new standards.

"We will work to restore an accountable, above-board, transparent process for funding decisions and put an end to the abuses that have harmed the credibility of Congress," the chairmen said.

The unfinished bills account for about $463 billion in annual spending and include just about every domestic program other than defense and homeland security.

The announcement appears to be a victory for conservative budget reformers, such as Reps. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) and Tom Price (R-Ga.), who circulated a petition last week calling for a resolution that would extend funding through the rest of the year, but without earmarks. That petition, however, called for all domestic programs to be funded at the lowest levels called for in either the House or Senate versions.

In contrast, Obey and Byrd indicated that they would seek adjustments in spending levels to satisfy Democrats and moderate Republicans who were upset by the austere funding bills passed by the House Appropriations Committee. In particular, the measure to fund labor, health and education programs fell billions of dollars short of the Senate-approved levels, and the levels that even many House Republicans said were acceptable.

The biggest victory would be for those lawmakers who have crusaded against earmarks, or home-district pet projects. Virtually all of the bills that pass the Senate and House appropriations committees contain such projects. For the fiscal year that began in October and will end Sept. 30, the slate will be wiped clean.

Obey and Byrd noted that the last time Congress passed all appropriation bills separately and on schedule, and got them signed by the president in time for the next fiscal year, was in 1994, the last year they both served as chairmen. In November 1994, a month after the 1995 fiscal year began, Republicans won control of Congress.

For more or less every year since the takeover, the GOP has struggled to produce a smooth succession of spending bills, creating strained relations between the more ideologically minded Republican leadership in both chambers and their more practical-minded appropriations colleagues. Most recently, the Senate has been the stubborn obstacle, with Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) refusing to advance spending bills during a hard-fought election year.

Those tensions bubbled to the surface on the House floor as lawmakers wrapped up their business early Saturday. "The breakdown of regular order this cycle, indeed the failure to get our bills done, should be fairly placed at the feet of the departing Senate majority leader," said Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.), the outgoing House Appropriations Committee chairman.

Lewis noted that his panel passed each of the 11 subcommittee bills out of the full committee by June 30, and, with the exception of a giant bill that funds health and education programs, all of the bills off the House floor by the July 4 break. The Senate also passed each of its bills out of the full committee, only to see them run aground on the Senate floor.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/11/AR2006121101305_pf.html

Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Democrats Freeze Earmarks for Now
« Reply #1 on: December 12, 2006, 12:20:55 PM »
Why didn't the GOP do this all the while they were in control?  I like what I'm seeing.

That was my biggest disappointment with the GOP congress.

Democratic leaders declared a temporary moratorium on special-interest provisions known as earmarks as they attempt to cope with a budget crisis left by the outgoing Republican-led 109th Congress.

Seems to contradict Knutia's crowing about "pork-cutting" by the Dems.
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Democrats Freeze Earmarks for Now
« Reply #2 on: December 12, 2006, 12:30:15 PM »
I'm hopeful.  It's a step in the right direction.  Why didn't the GOP do this all the while they were in control? 

Excellent question. 

So, when should we expect a cessation in funding the war & impeachment precedings to begin?  March?  August?  2009?
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Brassmask

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2600
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Democrats Freeze Earmarks for Now
« Reply #3 on: December 12, 2006, 01:06:39 PM »
I'm hopeful.  It's a step in the right direction.  Why didn't the GOP do this all the while they were in control? 

Excellent question. 

So, when should we expect a cessation in funding the war & impeachment precedings to begin?  March?  August?  2009?

To try and answer your snide question in a reasonable and honest fashion, I have to tell you that the one place where I see these points being discussed (DailyKos) is in real turmoil over how to proceed on these points.

There are two, really three, ways people there are looking at impeachment.

 Markos Moulitsas took A LOT of heat on his site last week when he declared that he thought impeachment shouldn't even be considered.  His points were several.  Among them were the idea of a "president" Cheney, the appearance of "revenge" for either Clinton or the few years in the wilderness the Dems have suffered and the need to give the American People the opportunity to see a real congress in action so that when '08 rolls around, the Dems have a lot of good feelings built up amongst the electorate.  That's one view.

The other, opposite of sorts, view is that Bush is a criminal at worst, at the very least inept and shouldn't be allowed to manage a McDonalds much less the most powerful nation on earth.  The Cheney problem for the most part is considered a non-issue since they are lame now for the next two years.  Some even claiming that Cheney should also be impeached.  Polls are sited that show that 70% of Americans think that impeachment should be considered.  Polls showing Bush's approval at 30% are sited.  Those who like the idea of impeachment also state that if lying to a grand jury is grounds for impeachment (usually stated as "lying about a blowjob") then lying to congress and lying to the American people is SURELY an impeachable offence especially in light of the idea that congress actually decides what is considered "high crimes and misdemeanors".

The third view, which I take, is that we could do both.  Spend the next year and a half showing the American people that the Dems mean business and that transperancy and graft are not going to be abided by showing real oversight of all spending both domestically and abroad in places like IRAQ.  All the while having hearings on where all this money has gone over the last 6 years; and if that demands that some be subpeona'ed then so be it.  I relish the idea of all those Young Republicans who were hired to run Iraq after we first took over telling a committee that they were trying to finish law school and got a call to go abroad.

All the while the Dems are conducting REAL oversight of all the money spent in the Iraq Fiasco, the Katrina tragedy and on and on, they could be passing legislation that addresses these CRIMES and over the next 12 to 15 months build a case for impeachment in the last year of Bush/Cheney and do a quicky impeachment like Al Franken has been sort of joking about for some months now when the public is DEMANDING their impeachment.

I've not seen any real discussions on de-funding the troops in Iraq.  That would be counter-productive in my estimation.  It would be punishing the victims, in my opinion.

A more likely scenario would be the repeal of that "empowerment of the 'president'" deal that gave him the "power" to go into Iraq if necessary.  If Hillary led that, she'd be a shoo-in.  But I hope she doesn't.