DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Lanya on December 23, 2006, 02:36:52 AM
-
Posted on Fri, Dec. 22, 2006
Spending freeze targets pet projects for members of Congress
By Matt Stearns and Rob Hotakainen
McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON - Democratic leaders in the new Congress plan to strip funding for thousands of pet projects for individual members, a big display of fiscal discipline they say will help cut deficits and curb spending abuses.
As soon as they take control on Jan. 4, Democrats plan to impose a one-year moratorium on all special projects, known as earmarks, effectively killing those that were tucked into unfinished spending bills by the Republican-led Congress.
Although earmarks are best known for financing big public works projects, the moratorium will come with a distinct human cost.
Like a $250,000 earmark for Best Buddies International in Miami to help provide friendships and employment for the mentally retarded. A $250,000 earmark for a Kansas City domestic violence shelter's effort to expand a school-based anti-violence program. Another $250,000 earmark to expand services to the vision-impaired in Alaska. And $50,000 for the Hungry Lil' Readers Club in Minneapolis.
Overall, the House of Representatives and Senate spending bills for education and social services had about $1 billion in earmarks. Hundreds of millions more lay in other spending bills for similar programs. After-school programs, family literacy programs, health programs: All losing key funding.
As Congress prepares to consider another $100-plus billion emergency appropriation to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, some fear that the hardship is falling disproportionately on small groups and organizations.
"If what's happening with these earmarks is that it's all the little things that are getting cut, it's not like we're all in it together," said Lina Belar, a project manager with the History Museum of East Otter Tail County in Perham, Minn. Museum officials received a call from the office of Rep. Collin Peterson, D-Minn., telling them that the museum's $150,000 earmark for a new veterans exhibit, which passed the House, is now on the chopping block.
Many of the earmarks were small compared with the multimillion-dollar earmarks frequently found in bills that pay for defense and transportation.
But local social service agencies typically operate close to the bone.
"This source of funding can be critical to a non-profit," said Gene Morgan, president of the Kansas City Community Center, which stands to lose a $500,000 earmark from Missouri Republican Sen. Kit Bond to improve safety and security at a halfway house it runs in midtown Kansas City. "I just don't have that kind of cash laying around."
Those who are losing money don't understand why Congress can't differentiate between a good earmark and a bad one.
"This is not a pork barrel," said the Rev. Sam Mann, executive director of Kansas City's United Inner City Services, for which Bond obtained a $750,000 earmark to expand early learning programs for poor urban kids. "This is money going to uplift a neighborhood and children."
Earmarks, sometimes derisively called "pork" projects, are special appropriations that pay for everything from social programs to hospital improvements to road construction to research. While they've long been popular with Democrats and Republicans alike, earmarks became a big issue in the 2006 congressional campaigns because of some widely publicized scandals. Among them were a $452 million earmark for two bridges in Alaska and a bribery scheme that landed former Republican Rep. Duke Cunningham of California in prison after he accepted more than $2 million in bribes after providing special earmarks for defense contractors.
In a joint statement released earlier this month, Sen. Robert Bryd, D-Va., and Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., the incoming chairmen of the Senate and House appropriations committees, said that the moratorium will remain in effect "until a reformed process is put in place" and that earmarks included in this year's House and Senate bills will be eligible for consideration in 2008. They said the moratorium is the result of "fiscal mayhem" left over by the Republican Congress.
"Republicans have spent years handing out billions upon billions of dollars in tax cuts to millionaires while shortchanging our national priorities," Obey said. "It is going to take us years to get back on track."
The moratorium has the backing of President Bush, who called it "a good start" toward imposing fiscal discipline on Capitol Hill. In his weekly radio address Dec. 16, Bush said that the number of earmarks has exploded in recent years, going from about 3,000 in 1996 to 13,000 in 2006. He said Congress has created a system where earmarks are often approved with no public debate.
"It is not surprising that this often leads to unnecessary federal spending, such as a swimming pool or a teapot museum tucked into a big spending bill," Bush said.
But some Republicans say earmarks have been a great help to their constituents, and they fear that the new Congress might be going too far.
"The danger now is that Congress could swing from one extreme to the other, leaving important projects without much-needed funding," said Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn.
Obey said there are no perfect solutions, but he noted that Republican leaders adjourned this year without passing a budget and without passing nine of the 11 major appropriations bills needed to keep the government running. As a result, he said, Republicans "forfeited their right to complain about whatever action we are forced to take next year to clean up their chaotic mess."
Organizations affected by the moratorium shouldn't fret, said David Williams, vice president of policy at Citizens Against Government Waste. But he said projects no longer will be able to quietly slip through a back channel with no hearing.
"They're going to have to go through the checks and balances and the competitive bidding process," he said. "It's a lot more difficult to go through the proper process, but really it is a lot fairer."
McClatchy Newspapers correspondent Brady Averill contributed to this report.
http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/nation/16301498.htm
-
Will be interesting if they plan to eliminate pork or juist rebrand it.
-
Will be interesting if they plan to eliminate pork or juist rebrand it.
That's what I thought when I read the article - "they don't want to eliminate pork, they just want to call it something else and say they've eliminated it."
-
With Tom DeLay out of the picture, there will still be corruption, but it will be less, because the corrupt politicians are less corrupt than DeLay.
-
With Tom DeLay out of the picture, there will still be corruption, but it will be less, because the corrupt politicians are less corrupt than DeLay.
So you are saying then new dem congress is second string wannabees. That Delay was far superior at what he did than anyone who could possibly come from the dem side? Whatever happened to wanting to be the best at what you do?
-
What makes you think that Tom Delay is corrupt at all?
Did anyone find cash in his refrigerator?
-
DeLay was selling influence and rigging gerrymanders for hundreds of thousands in exchange for millions of government money. Being good at corruption is not good, by the way.
If DeLay had not been doing anything wrong, he would not have left in disgrace. The evidence is as clear as it can get.
-
Like a $250,000 earmark for Best Buddies International in Miami to help provide friendships and employment for the mentally retarded. A $250,000 earmark for a Kansas City domestic violence shelter's effort to expand a school-based anti-violence program. Another $250,000 earmark to expand services to the vision-impaired in Alaska. And $50,000 for the Hungry Lil' Readers Club in Minneapolis.
Dems could care less about the mentally retarded, battered women, the blind or the hungry. They have no compassion and will cut funding for these people most in need. How heartless, and right before Christmas no less.
-
Dems could care less about the mentally retarded, battered women, the blind or the hungry. They have no compassion and will cut funding for these people most in need. How heartless, and right before Christmas no less.
=============================================================================
Have you mentioned one single bill? No, you have not.
Will you? no, you will not.
You are simply full of it. None of these has to be an earmark.
Presumably, there are no hungry in thre US. I have heard you ratwingers say it dozens of times.
-
Presumably, there are no hungry in thre US. I have heard you ratwingers say it dozens of times.
Got a link to one of these occasions?
-
Presumably, there are no hungry in the US. I have heard you ratwingers say it dozens of times.
Got a link to one of these occasions?
===========================================================
Sirs and UP have said this dozens of times. It you have a poor memory, look for yourself.
I don't do links for you.
-
Sirs and UP have said this dozens of times. It you have a poor memory, look for yourself.
I did a search, nothing came up.
I don't do links for you.
Apparently, you don't do links for anyone.
-
DeLay was selling influence and rigging gerrymanders for hundreds of thousands in exchange for millions of government money. Being good at corruption is not good, by the way.
If DeLay had not been doing anything wrong, he would not have left in disgrace. The evidence is as clear as it can get.
I don't see a trial going on , I don't see evidence being presented .
Do you expect this or do you expect trumped up charges to be dropped?
-
Texas Appeals Court Sets Date to Consider Reinstating DeLay Conspiracy Charge
Friday , December 22, 2006
AUSTIN, Texas — Texas' highest criminal appeals court will hear arguments Jan. 24 on whether it should reinstate a dropped conspiracy charge against former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.
A Travis County grand jury indicted DeLay and two political consultants last year on felony money laundering and conspiracy charges stemming from Republican fundraising in the 2002 legislative races. DeLay stepped down as majority leader after the charges were filed and announced his resignation from Congress a few months later.
A state district judge threw out one of two conspiracy charges and let stand the money laundering charge. Prosecutors asked the appeals court to reinstate the dropped conspiracy charge, a move that has postponed trial proceedings on the remaining charges.
DeLay and other Texas Republicans have accused prosecutor Ronnie Earle, a Democrat, of conducting a political vendetta.
State District Judge Pat Priest has said he will continue with the trial when the appeals process has been concluded.
There is no deadline for the Court of Criminal Appeals to act after hearing the oral arguments, Priest said in a statement.
Prosecutors accuse the three defendants of funneling $190,000 in illegal corporate money to the Republican National Committee, which then donated the same amount to Texas candidates. Under Texas law, corporate money can't be directly used for political campaigns.
DeLay and the consultants, Jim Ellis and John Colyandro, say the transaction was legal.
DeLay's attorney argues that the dropped charge accuses DeLay of conspiring to violate the election code as it stood in 2003, and that the transaction was legal at the time it was made. The remaining conspiracy charge accuses DeLay of conspiring to launder money.
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,238317,00.html
-
Presumably, there are no hungry in the US. I have heard you ratwingers say it dozens of times.
<<Got a link to one of these occasions?>>
===========================================================
Sirs and UP have said this dozens of times. It you have a poor memory, look for yourself. I don't do links for you.
Do one for me, as I've NEVER made such an asanine claim. Not once (much less "dozens of times"), have I, nor have I ever seen Prince make such a claim or even implication. And if you're not going to bother to back up the claim, are we going to want to chalk this one up to simply being mistaken, or simply being a lie? You get to choose
-
Sirs and UP have said this dozens of times. It you have a poor memory, look for yourself. I don't do links for you.
Do one for me, as I've NEVER made such an asanine claim. Not once (much less "dozens of times"), have I, nor have I ever seen Prince make such a claim or even implication
I guess given your track record & failure to respond, we'll chalk this one up to again being grossly in error, as in wrong yet again
-
"DeLay and other Texas Republicans have accused prosecutor Ronnie Earle, a Democrat, of conducting a political vendetta."
This is how I see it .
There is small potential for a trial to really make things worse for DeLay and the Texas Republicans , the accusation is pretty tecnical tha the defense is too. I don't think that most of the public will be able to follow .
But there is a slightly larger potential for the trial to become the sort of farce that establishes as fact that prosecutor Ronnie Earle, a Democrat, is conducting a political vendetta.
-
DeLay was selling influence and rigging gerrymanders for hundreds of thousands in exchange for millions of government money. Being good at corruption is not good, by the way.
If DeLay had not been doing anything wrong, he would not have left in disgrace. The evidence is as clear as it can get.
Apparently not.
No Charges Against DeLay in Abramoff Inquiry
By CHARLIE SAVAGE
WASHINGTON - Tom DeLay, a Texas Republican and former House majority leader who resigned from Congress in June 2006 in a spectacular fall from political power, will not face federal corruption charges over his dealings with the disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
After a six-year investigation, the Justice Department's public integrity section has informed Mr. DeLay that it was closing its file on his involvement in the Abramoff affair without an indictment, Mr. DeLay and his lawyer, Richard Cullen, announced Monday.
"This is a great day for me and my family," Mr. DeLay told reporters in a conference call.
Mr. DeLay's legal troubles are not yet over. He still faces a trial in Texas on unrelated state charges of money laundering and conspiracy in connection with campaign donations during the 2002 election. A trial on those charges, for which he was indicted in 2005, was delayed for years because of an appeal by co-defendants, but a hearing on pretrial motions is scheduled for next week.
Mr. DeLay predicted Monday that he would be exonerated on those charges as well, while saying that he was always confident that he would be found not guilty of any wrongdoing in his dealings with Mr. Abramoff. Mr. DeLay noted that while he could have thrown up roadblocks to the federal investigation, he had instead turned over his e-mail and computer files and instructed aides to cooperate fully.
The scandal, which helped Democrats win majorities in Congress in the 2006 election, led to convictions or guilty pleas by two of Mr. DeLay's former aides; former Representative Bob Ney, Republican of Ohio; two former White House officials; Mr. Abramoff himself; and several other former Congressional aides and lobbyists. Mr. Abramoff was released from prison in June.
It involved a sprawling series of accusations that officials accepted gifts, trips and campaign donations while doing favors for Mr. Abramoff's clients, which included gambling interests like Indian tribal and online casinos and the Northern Mariana Islands, a United States commonwealth that was seeking to preserve its exemption from a minimum wage.
Mr. DeLay took several trips arranged by Mr. Abramoff, who also helped raise money for his political campaigns and a charity Mr. DeLay runs for foster children. A firm with financial ties to Mr. Abramoff established a retirement account for Mr. DeLay's wife, and she and their daughter also received payments for consulting work on Mr. Delay's campaigns.
Melanie Sloan, the executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a government watchdog group, sharply criticized the Justice Department's decision to close the investigation into Mr. DeLay's role without charges.
"It's a sad day for America when one of the most corrupt members to ever walk the halls of Congress gets a free pass," Ms. Sloan said. "The Justice Department's decision not to prosecute Mr. DeLay for his actions sends exactly the wrong message to current and future members."
But Mr. DeLay said that he had done nothing wrong and that his political enemies had spent more than a decade coming up with "frivolous" ethics charges against him. He denounced the "criminalization of politics and the politics of personal destruction" that he contended his case exemplified.
"The new politics - it's no longer good enough to beat you on policy," he said. "They have to completely drown you and put you in prison and destroy your family and your reputation and finances, then dance on your grave."
The Justice Department has a policy of not discussing or confirming investigations that end without charges, and a spokeswoman declined to comment.
Mr. Cullen said prosecutors had periodically contacted him to ask questions over the years, but had never requested an interview with Mr. DeLay himself.
Mr. DeLay said he had no regrets over his dealings with Mr. Abramoff, saying he had never done anything "untoward or unprofessional" for him. Mr. DeLay defended the trips, saying it was good to find ways to avoid having taxpayers pay for his travel, and also defended the merits of the policy positions he took that dovetailed with the interests of Mr. Abramoff's clients.
"The thing that bothers me the most, I think, is not that people think I'm corrupt," Mr. DeLay said. "It's that they think I'm stupid. I knew the Democrats were going to come after me - they announced they were going to come after me. So I wouldn't even go to the restroom without a lawyer saying I could. Everything was absolutely above-board, transparent, within the House rules, and I have been found guilty of nothing."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/17/us/politics/17delay.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/17/us/politics/17delay.html)
-
D'oh. You mean this was likely *gasp* politically driven?? naaaaaaaaaaa
-
Back to the issue at hand, namely the first post in this thread: will earmarks be banned or not? By all or just a select few?
-
Hola Professor. 8) Well, to answer your question, it depends......on when. If its before the election, there will be campaign rhetoric on both sides that will demonstrate absolute steadfast support in banning nearly, if not all pork barrel earmarks. Then following the election we can move on to more pressing needs, like Cap & Trade, TARP, Obamacare, TARP II. And the MSM appears to not feel the need to bring up their initial campaign pledges, post election. And it doesn't seem to matter which party is in power
-
Well ,a reason why earmarks still exist is that local politics rules the land and ppl look to local politicians to "bring in the pork". The late Robert Byrd was notorious for earmarks and most West Virginians felt highly of him.