Senate Republicans' ban on earmarks was short-lived One Senate GOP leader reaps $200 million for his state
WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans' ban on earmarks — money included in a bill by a lawmaker to benefit a home-state project or interest — was short-lived.
Only three days after GOP senators and senators-elect renounced earmarks, Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl, the No. 2 Senate Republican, got himself a whopping $200 million to settle an Arizona Indian tribe's water rights claim against the government.
Kyl slipped the measure into a larger bill sought by President Barack Obama and passed by the Senate on Friday to settle claims by black farmers and American Indians against the federal government. Kyl's office insists the measure is not an earmark, and the House didn't deem it one when it considered a version earlier this year.
But it meets the know-it-when-you-see-it test, critics say. Under Senate rules, an earmark is a spending item inserted "primarily at the request of a senator" that goes "to an entity, or (is) targeted to a specific state."
:blahblah: :ZZZ :Loco: :blabla: :Snooze :Snooze :Snooze Seriously this is all you have to post about? I thought you Libs are all for reparation type actions? This doesn't look like an earmark to me. You just can't please you libs. Non story...... :Snooze :Snooze :Snooze
Wait, he had money to settle a claim by an Indian tribe against the Federal Government added to a bill that is specifically written to settle claims by Indian tribes against the Federal Government? The nerve! He should be shot for putting something so completely relevant into a bill.
"Whatever you are, be a good one." ~ Abraham Lincoln
The costs of the water claims settlements will be offset by cuts to other government programs, including $562 million in overbudgeted 2010 funding for the federal nutrition program for women, infants and children. Either way, the government is on the hook to settle the water claims or risk larger losses in court.
<sarcasm>Yep, sure sounds like an improper earmark to me, that will increase spending</sarcasm>
Experience enables you to recognize a mistake when you make it again - Jeanne Pincha-Tulley
Comprehensive is Latin for there is lots of bad stuff in it - Trey Gowdy
Oh I see. The Republicans didn't mean a ban on earmarks at all. They meant a ban on earmarks they consider bad. Bad = Democrat
. It all makes sense now!
ckm8 wrote: Oh I see. The Republicans didn't mean a ban on earmarks at all. They meant a ban on earmarks they consider bad. Bad = Democrat
. It all makes sense now!
I can't speak to the intentions of the republicans in office, but personally, I don't see a problem with this addition to the bill. It is directly related to the bill and settles a claim. It appears to be a senator taking care of business with a local tribe - which is a federal issue.
I hate earmarks, and really hate unrelated riders on bills. I don't see this being either one. I see this being a claim included in legislation directly relevant to the issue.
But, I can understand the liberals jumping on this - spin and whine away. I'm sure I'd have done the same thing two years ago. You gotta grab whatever thread you can while you're falling no matter how thin it is.
"Whatever you are, be a good one." ~ Abraham Lincoln
