A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Penske, with all of his photoshops, has never exposed the board to the real threat of a copyright infringement suit the way you have with your hate montage. Why do you hate the politics board of lawtalkers?

Every time you wrongly accuse someone of hating, the Baby Jesus cries.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
This is definitey a move in the right direction, although just a baby step. The problem with making people put their names to ear marks is that most congressmen are proud of their pork. It is what they highlight in their letters home to their constituents. Look at Byrd, his whole career is built on his pork. So making congressmen put their name on their earmarks ain't going to do much. What they really need to do is put a stop to earmarks all together.

I agree with you on the larger point -- government makes some people very happy. But how do you stop earmarks? Isn't it Congress's job to appropriate funds?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
This is definitey a move in the right direction, although just a baby step. The problem with making people put their names to ear marks is that most congressmen are proud of their pork. It is what they highlight in their letters home to their constituents. Look at Byrd, his whole career is built on his pork. So making congressmen put their name on their earmarks ain't going to do much. What they really need to do is put a stop to earmarks all together.

So nice to see you get religion. How much did earmarks increase under the R-controlled Congress?

I think the numbers are, roughly, that the number of earmarks quadrupled since 1994, and the cost more than doubled.

Byrd is a scumbag, but singling him out is... well, consistent with the "blame the Dems for everything" motif. It's amazing how much power we had from 1994 through 2006. Thank God the DNC funded all those mind-control experiments.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I agree with you on the larger point -- government makes some people very happy. But how do you stop earmarks? Isn't it Congress's job to appropriate funds?

I believe earmarks are added after the whole process (committee, first vote in both houses etc). They are last minute inserts before the final vote and after the reconciliation agreement between the House and Senate bills.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Spanky
I believe earmarks are added after the whole process (committee, first vote in both houses etc). They are last minute inserts before the final vote and after the reconciliation agreement between the House and Senate bills.

Aren't you pleasant first thing Monday morning. When did I get religion? When I wrote my senior honors thesis on ways to reform the Federal budget process over twenty years ago. When did I ever defend this current congress's fiscal discipline? However, under Gingrich Congresses fiscal discipline was beyond all expectation and beyond impressive.

Once he left and W. came in, it went all to hell.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
I believe earmarks are added after the whole process (committee, first vote in both houses etc). They are last minute inserts before the final vote and after the reconciliation agreement between the House and Senate bills.

Interesting. Wikipedia says:

• In the United States legislative appropriations process, Congress has, within the powers granted under Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, the power to direct the appropriations of money drawn from the treasury. This includes the power to earmark funds it appropriates (in other words, "to designate revenue") to be spent on specific named projects. The earmarking process is a regular part of the process of allocating funds within the federal government. Each of the appropriations subcommittees have their own practices for determining whether and what kind of projects they are willing to earmark, and each sets rules for how earmark requests are to be received from members, including setting deadlines and required format for submissions.
  
  Allowing members of Congress to earmark funds has a variety of purposes. For the member of Congress, the earmark allows them to take credit for providing a project of interest to their constituents. Allowing earmarked projects is often a tool that Appropriations committee chairs use to ensure that they can secure and hold the votes of members of Congress to help their bill pass. An earmark directing specific projects to be funded allows agencies to bypass regulatory determinations over the matter, saving them administrative time and effort.
  
  Earmarking differs from the broader appropriations process where Congress grants a lump sum to an agency to allocate according to the agency's legal authority, within the discretion allowed by law, according to the agency's internal budgeting process. Earmarks specifically direct the actions of federal agencies, obliging them to spend a portion of the budget on special projects as directed by Congress.
  
  Earmarking is used for projects and spending directives large and small. The vast majority of earmarks are not controversial. However, some become controversial for their cost or the perceived frivolous nature of the project.

In this sense, you'll never do away with earmarks. It's just what Congress does. But in the more limited sense that you describe -- an appropriation added after the final vote -- they could certainly be abolished.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
Aren't you pleasant first thing Monday morning. When did I get religion? When I wrote my senior honors thesis on ways to reform the Federal budget process over twenty years ago. When did I ever defend this current congress's fiscal discipline? However, under Gingrich Congresses fiscal discipline was beyond all expectation and beyond impressive.

Once he left and W. came in, it went all to hell.

I did a quick search for earmarks under Gingrich. According to Citizens Against Government Waste, they continued to rise. The president of that org had this to say:

Schatz said that the proliferation of earmarks started after Republicans took control of the House in 1994. Then-Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) directed appropriators to help GOP lawmakers with tough reelection races by giving them projects they could boast about back home.

Now, I don't know how credible this org is, or how partisan. But the numbers do seem to speak for themselves. And it's hardly difficult to imagine the Gingrich-led Rs using earmarks, and any other means, to secure power.



Note: Snarling at yourself in a post is a sign that maybe you had a really fun weekend.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Byrd is a scumbag, but singling him out is... well, consistent with the "blame the Dems for everything" motif. It's amazing how much power we had from 1994 through 2006. Thank God the DNC funded all those mind-control experiments.

That's a little much, Sidd.

I'm interested in the numbers too -- because the perception is that the GOP ended up wallowing in the trough, but Byrd is a prime example and proud champion of pork projects. To make Spanky's post bipartisan, he could have added Ted Stevens.

S_A_M

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
That's a little much, Sidd.

I'm interested in the numbers too -- because the perception is that the GOP ended up wallowing in the trough, but Byrd is a prime example and proud champion of pork projects. To make Spanky's post bipartisan, he could have added Ted Stevens.

S_A_M

As I said, Byrd is a scumbag. But when an R talks about earmarks, and his immediate thought is to point to a Dem... well, it suggests to me that that R has not exactly recognized that the enemy is within, too.

And I think you mean Don "Bridges to Nowhere" Young.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I'm interested in the numbers too -- because the perception is that the GOP ended up wallowing in the trough, but Byrd is a prime example and proud champion of pork projects. To make Spanky's post bipartisan, he could have added Ted Stevens.

Both parties have senior senators from states that expect them to work hard to bring home the pork. If you want to figure out who those senators are, look for the states that get the most federal spending per capita -- you'll find them in the south and west. Most senators work to take care of their state's biggest employers -- e.g., Sen. Lieberman has been a big pal of Wall St., as one would expect -- and in southern and western states particularly, this means federal spending.

Which is to say that turning this conversation into a discussion of which side has Byrd and Inouye and which has Stevens and Lott is pointless. It lets you strike a Broderesque "a pox on both houses" pose that may make you feel morally superior but tells you nothing about how things change and how they stay the same. Congressional leadership must try to strike a balance between these parochial interests and the public interest. Democrats just pushed that balance back towards the public interest.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Congressional leadership must try to strike a balance between these parochial interests and the public interest. Democrats just pushed that balance back towards the public interest.

A little. I hope they keep pushing. On this, I agree with Spanky.

I'm not sure that banning earmarks is realistic. I'm not sure that "earmarks" have a solid enough definition that such a ban would be workable -- that you would catch all the bad spending you want to catch, while not seeming to preclude spending that you want (like specific projects in specific districts that are really desirable -- like improving they levy in NO...)

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
So nice to see you get religion. How much did earmarks increase under the R-controlled Congress?

I think the numbers are, roughly, that the number of earmarks quadrupled since 1994, and the cost more than doubled.

Byrd is a scumbag, but singling him out is... well, consistent with the "blame the Dems for everything" motif. It's amazing how much power we had from 1994 through 2006. Thank God the DNC funded all those mind-control experiments.

Byrd is a klansman and virulent racist, but I guess its okay for the Dems if he brings home the bacon.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Every time you wrongly accuse someone of hating, the Baby Jesus cries.

What do you think he does when the left tries to undermine America or sell out Israel's future to the terrorists?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I did a quick search for earmarks under Gingrich. According to Citizens Against Government Waste, they continued to rise. The president of that org had this to say:




Now, I don't know how credible this org is, or how partisan. But the numbers do seem to speak for themselves. And it's hardly difficult to imagine the Gingrich-led Rs using earmarks, and any other means, to secure power.

I said "However, under Gingrich Congresses fiscal discipline was beyond all expectation and beyond impressive.” Regardless of what happens with earmarks that statement is beyond dispute. That statement refers to the aggregate budget and so what happens with the aggregate budget is what counts. When they got into office in 95 they cut the hell out of the budget. The only reason they did not cut more is because Clinton shut down the government (by refusing to sign appropriation bills until they including more spending) to prevent them from cutting more. But for Clinton’s intransigence, the budget would have been balanced even sooner.

You may not agree with the cuts they made and the cuts they proposed, but you have to agree that they showed remarkable budgetary discipline. Before the Republican takeover they were talking about cutting the deficit in half in ten years, after the Republicans took over the debate changed to how quicklly they would balance the budget. Clinton wanted it later than sooner, and Gingrich wanted it sooner than later. Clinton thought the Republicans wanted to balance the budget too quickly. But once everyone was confident the budget would be balanced (because of the Republican fiscal discipline at the time) interest rates dropped and the economy exploded.

After Gingrich left, and especially after W got elected all that discipline went right out the window.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
A little. I hope they keep pushing. On this, I agree with Spanky.

I'm not sure that banning earmarks is realistic. I'm not sure that "earmarks" have a solid enough definition that such a ban would be workable -- that you would catch all the bad spending you want to catch, while not seeming to preclude spending that you want (like specific projects in specific districts that are really desirable -- like improving they levy in NO...)

How about no more earmarks after the Senate and House reconciliation conferences on the budget?

However, eventhough pork is really wasteful etc. it is really a small part of the budget. When you throw together interest on the debt, entitlements and the defense budget, there ain't much left. That is why the big fight between Gingrich and Clinton was over reducing the growth of Medicare. I believe reducing the growth of Medicare just a little would more than make up cutting out all the pork.