Earmarks ban loom, lawmakers find ways to fund pet projects

Beeks wrote: I think it's exactly what she was talking about, all just variations of the same theme.......

I would disagree with that sentiment. To me at least there is a difference between adding funding for a butterfly pavilion in a certain state to a defense spending bill to secure the vote of a Senator and a Senator contacting the head of the department that would be responsible for such spending to request that money appropriated by Congress to that department not reserved for other projects be allocated to that project by the department head. One is request made on behalf of one's constituents, the other is nothing more or less than an out and out bribe that has been sanctioned and allowed by the rules of Congress. One contains the potential for abuse, the other is simply nothing other than an abuse.

All of us are put into situations where abuse is possible during the course of our lives Beeks. Whether or not we succumb to it when encountered is what determines whether or not one is a person of good character. Asking for consideration from someone else isn't defacto abuse of the office that is held because the power to decide doesn't rest with the one making the request, it resides with the person the request is made of. It would be an impossibility to erect a structure whereby abuse of the system is not possible within the public sphere of government. That is why it is so vital that the character of the individual be more important than their political affiliation when posts are filled by appointment. Honor is either sacred to an individual or it is not. When it is not, abuses will occur regardless of any steps taken to prevent it. That is why a smaller government is a better government in every instance.

Which is a long-winded way of saying "It's okay if Republicans do it"... God, I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning...

Which is a short winded way of saying that you've got to find something to be outraged about regarding Republicans, but you don't care what progressives do. And you want to talk to me about hypocrisy?

Tell me LJ, are Republicans the only ones engaging in the behavior? Can you show me how Republicans are using this avenue to purchase votes the way the last Congress used legislative to commit legal bribery to get their agenda items passed? This method is a means of requesting funding not already spoken for within a department's budget be used to fund a project in their state. The final decision of whether or not to do so rests with the head of the department involved and the president who appointed them, not with elected representatives serving in Congress. I fail to see exactly what the problem with this is from your particular point of view. The Republicans will be making the request to appointed members of the Obama administration. They are much less likely to receive money this way than the members of the president's own party are when you get down to the brass tacks of it. This will likely be the manner in which the president continues to reward the folks who follow him like a golden pied piper since the new Congress won't have access to the more traditional forms of bribery so expertly displayed by Reid and Pelosi in the first 2 years of his administration.

But don't let reality stand in the way of your outrage of the day. It's a lot more fun to sling mud at the Republican party to see what might stick, isn't it. As long as a Republican is even requesting funds for something in their state they are exhibiting hypocrisy given that they are going to be changing the rules in Congress such that porkbarrel earmarks can't be hung on every bill like ornaments on a lame duck Christmas tree, right?

PrintSmith wrote: But don't let reality stand in the way of your outrage of the day. It's a lot more fun to sling mud at the Republican party to see what might stick, isn't it. It's a lot more fun to sling mud at the Republican party to see what might stick, isn't it. As long as a Republican is even requesting funds for something in their state they are exhibiting hypocrisy given that they are going to be changing the rules in Congress such that porkbarrel earmarks can't be hung on every bill like ornaments on a lame duck Christmas tree, right?

You should know... You guys are the experts at outrage-of-the-day politics of slinging mud on the wall to see what sticks. Gawd, I'm going to love the next two years. Payback is going to be a bitch.

Yes, earmarks (porkbarrel) by any other name are still earmarks...regardless of what creative term the GOP comes up with to put lipstick on the pig.

So tell me friend, how is a request from Representative Coffman to the Secretary of Transportation to disperse some of the funds from his budget for the work at Shaffers Crossing on 285 an example of porkbarrel earmark spending? We're not talking about Pelosi hanging the funding for the project to secure his vote on a pending bill to increase the length of time one is eligible for unemployment welfare payments that he has expressed opposition to in order to get him to change his vote. We're talking about an elected member of Congress sending a request to a department head that was appointed by the executive branch of the federal government that a certain project within his district be considered for funding by that department head.

Why, pray tell, is that not the way that it should be handled as opposed to the current method? Coffman wouldn't have final say in whether or not the funding request was granted by the department head under this scenario, the head of the executive and the head of the department would be the ones with the power over the final decision, not the elected member of Congress. How is a request from a member of Congress regarding funds generally appropriated to a specific department now equated with a legislative mandate from the assembled Congress in the form of an amendment to a bill that is otherwise unassociated with the subject of the bill? I'm trying to follow the logic here, but as it is progressive logic (an oxymoron if ever there was one), I am understandably having difficulty connecting the disassociated dots.

PS...a response to your question would require actual thinking instead of the usual drive-by snide remarks.