More Earmark Problems

[JaJae]

Pork Barrell Stonewall
The Democrats refuse to allow public scrutiny of all earmarks.

BY JOHN BOEHNER
Thursday, September 27, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

House Republicans have launched a renewed effort to change the way Congress spends taxpayers' money. Our goal: Stop Congress from tucking members' pet spending projects into bills without public scrutiny and debate.

Pork-barrel earmarks were an important factor in the loss of the GOP majority last November. Years of irresponsible earmarks, slipped into bills behind closed doors without public debate or scrutiny, eroded Republicans' reputation as the party of fiscal responsibility and trustworthy custodians of taxpayer funds.

I've never made a secret of my distaste for worthless pork. Just a few months after being elected as majority leader last year, we enacted comprehensive reforms that brought the earmark process out into broad daylight. All taxpayer-funded earmarks had to be publicly disclosed and subject to challenge and debate. If you sponsor a project, we argued, you ought to be willing to put your name on it and defend it--and if not, you shouldn't ask taxpayers to pay for it. These reforms were the right thing to do--and they still are.

----------------------------------------------------------

The Democratic majority came to power in January promising to do a better job on earmarks. They appeared to preserve our reforms and even take them a bit further. I commended Democrats publicly for this action.

Unfortunately, the leadership reversed course. Desperate to advance their agenda, they began trading earmarks for votes, dangling taxpayer-funded goodies in front of wavering members to win their support for leadership priorities.

The Democrats' retreat began quietly, with passage of a "continuing resolution" in February that contained hidden earmarks. It steadily became more blatant. A troop funding bill was loaded with pork-barrel spending for things like spinach and peanuts--which one top Democrat publicly conceded was only in the bill to buy votes. Members were denied the ability to challenge individual earmarks on the House floor, stepping back from our original reforms and leaving members with no way to force a floor debate and vote on any earmark, even if it violated the rules or was particularly egregious.

By June, the leadership's dismal retreat culminated in a plan to pass appropriations bills loaded with slush funds for secret earmarks. The plan was met with a torrent of public criticism from voices across the political spectrum, and rightly so. House Republicans rallied to defeat the "secret earmarks" plan. It was a spirited fight: Everyone pitched in, and we fought with an energy found only in legislators who believe in their cause. It was a sign of a Republican Party beginning to return to its roots, breaking with past errors, and reconnecting with its principles. We forced Democrats to abandon their ill-conceived plan.

Now it's time for the next step. In dropping their plans for slush funds for secret earmarks, the Democrats agreed to require disclosure and debate on earmarks in appropriations bills. But this fix did not apply to tax and authorizing bills, which have historically been vehicles for some of the most indefensible earmarks churned out by Congress.

An authorizing bill was recently the vehicle for an illegitimate earmark requested by Rep. John Murtha (D., Pa.) that shifted $23 million in taxpayer funds to the so-called National Drug Intelligence Center--a facility located in Mr. Murtha's district that was declared "expensive and duplicative" by independent government analysts. The Democrats' bill to reauthorize the State Children's Health Insurance Program was loaded up with millions in hospital earmarks that were never debated and never subject to challenge on the House floor.

Under the procedures of the current House leadership, members still cannot force a debate or vote on any earmark in any non-appropriations bill that comes to the floor. This flawed system is ripe for abuse. It steps backward from the reforms Republicans implemented last year and makes a mockery of Democrats' promise to run a more transparent and accountable Congress.

----------------------------------------------------------

On June 12, I and other GOP leaders introduced legislation that would fully restore our reforms and require all earmarks in all types of bills--tax, appropriations, or authorizing--to be publicly disclosed and subject to challenge and open debate on the floor.

Since then I've repeatedly asked Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to work with us to correct this loophole, but there has been no action. Left with no other option, I filed a discharge petition in the House to force a vote on our reforms. Once this petition receives 218 member signatures, House rules require the majority to bring it to the House floor for an up-or-down vote.

House Republicans are returning to the fiscally conservative roots that first launched us into the majority in the 1990s. Meanwhile, the Democratic leadership appears intent on repeating the same mistakes that helped bring our majority to an end. Fixing the earmark process and using the power of public scrutiny to stop wasteful pork-barrel spending is essential if we are to restore the bonds of trust between the American people and their elected leaders.

Mr. Boehner is the Republican leader in the House of Representatives.

OpinionJournal - Extra

Boehner is a obviously pretty far to the right. But, I think he makes a lot of excellent points here and without his pro-Republican rhetoric about the Republicans actually giving a damn and not just causing a ruccus because they're not he ones spending, he makes all the same points I've made on this forum regarding earmarks.

Every person on this forum from what I could tell whether they were conservative, liberal or libertarian all despised the behavior of the Republicans and their spending. Every single person had an issue with the earmarks. I really can't think of one person who didn't.

It was the major factor in my support for politicians this upcoming election. I didn't think any party could do worse than the Republicans were doing on spending. They were an absolute nightmare when it came to spending. I really didn't think anyone could possibly do worse. I remember speaking with other members who no longer post here on instant messenger saying I wanted the Democrats to win in 06. He questioned why and I said because this spending crap is out of control. I was told, "Do you really think the Democrats are going to do any better?" I answered "Yes." He then laughed at me.

I hate to say it now, but he was right and I was wrong. The Democrats are no better. When they released their "Ethics Reform" I think I was one of the very few who had a problem with it. I attacked it for the same reasons Boehner is pointing out here. It purposely and intentfully removed earmark restrictions and reform that were very much needed not only to reduce spending, but to increase accountability and balance. And to top it all off they put Murtha! as the chair of the House and Appropriations Committee. Who did he have to slander to get that honor? The whole earmark fiasco currently undergoing our country is a complete and total joke and a disaster. The Republicans were horrid and it appears they've taught the Democrats a few tricks who then took it even further. I hate to think where our country will be in the next 5 years if we don't elect a president who will have firm stances on earmarks. The more I think about it the more I can't trust the Republicans or the Democrats. I'd be completely foolish to once again think the Republicans would be any better. They're just being tough on earmarks because of the elections. They added those earmark reforms in hopes of getting themselves re-elected because they were spending like madmen and the nation was pissed. They didn't do it because they wanted to. And the Democrats actually had the friggin gall to remove them and tell our country their plan was for the better! And the media ate it all up! What a crock.

The more this crap goes on the more likely it will be that I'll be voting for a third-party candidate in 06.

[RMNIXON]

I think forcing this reality out in the open and putting names on it is a good start. But the real root of the problem is with the party voters. If we keep sending people to Washington whos primary objective is to get as much spending sent back to their State or District this will not end. Everybody is playing the same game in both parties. The whole budget becomes a process of grab bags and local bribes for votes. When the people tell their representatives they have had enough it will stop. Or perhaps do as you suggest and no longer vote for the party candidates at all?

[goldenponderbob]

Pork-barrel earmarks were an important factor in the loss of the GOP majority last November.

Great post! The word "earmarks" seems tacky, but reminds me of the boxer who bit off a chunk his opponent's ear.

It would neat and tidy to say the republicans did themselves in last November with their stubborn, belligerent, "cops of the world", go-it-alone, middle east policies; little of which did any American any good, except to stay the "unproven" prophets of doom.

The callous, grabfest attitude toward the balancing act left by Clinton did indeed play a major role in the the hearts of the voters. They sent them packing because they were deceived! It's quite telling that warfunding measures are not exempt now; in fact they never were. Bad feeling toward republicans will allow democrats to get away with similar massive taxpayer ripoffs.

Ain't democracy swell: we choose which set of bandits will spend money we earned working at our jobs on the latest "bovine flatulance project". Dough, that for a fleeting moment we mistakingly thought was ours.

Dear God, please send us another Clinton, or at least a Proxmire, we're getting fleeced by both sides of what's left of our gold.

Twentyeight years ago we elected an actor who promised to stop the montrous growth of federal spending before it ran our national treasury into total bankruptcy. He knew what needed to be done, but had no idea how.
He succeeded at times in slowing the growth a bit, but never checked it. Clinton never promised anything of the sort, but managed to surprise all the economic gurus by at least getting spending in line with revenue. And for that, and little else, he's still the guy we really want back at the controls.

The monster now grows at an unprecented clip, and we've given up even trying to keep it in check. Every politician out there wonders how far away from DC, and how financially insulated, he or she will be when the shit finally hits the fan, which is going to happen at some point down the road for sure.

Something close to what happened to the soviet union in 1989 is as surely in our future as a continually rising burden of debt is to a man with no way to pay except to borrow more.

Neither George nor Nancy would have any idea what all this means, but both Clintons know it's true!

Whether Hill can do any better than Reagan is doubtful, but thanks to the republicans, she's going to get a shot at it.

[JaJae]

I definitely agree the Republicans killed themselves in 06 and a huge part was because of their spending. They were on damage control trying to get themselves out of it which is why they passed the reforms they did on earmarks. I don't believe for a second they passed them for the betterment of America, they did it in hopes of keeping power. And if the Democrats didn't remove them it's quite possible they would have removed them themselves. The whole system is a joke. Our society really needs to make a stink over this. We're so busy worrying about Bird Flu and Britney Spears that we're missing out on what really matters.

[hsmith]

Republicans should have passed an amendment getting rid of them when they held all the ropes.

They failed and are now blaming democrats for doing what they did.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by JaJae

I definitely agree the Republicans killed themselves in 06 and a huge part was because of their spending.

That and looking to soft on illegal immigration has the base upset as much as Iraq.

It looks clear at this point that the war will come to some kind of closure in a year or so. Either the Democrats will pull us out or we will have enough success to begin the same process. But the spending and immigration problems are unsolved and both sides are weak. That is part of why overall congression numbers are so low. It is not just the war.

[goldenponderbob]

The most important gift the "founding fathers" left us was placing the "power of the purse" in the hands of those most at risk of losing their jobs (each member of the "House" accountable every two years to the smallest group of constituents, the congressional district).

Tom Paine, my hero, had a few simple notions about that.
1. Have elections often.
2. Send a person you know, to represent you at the seat of government.
3. Don't leave him there too long.

The longer he stays at the seat of government, the more his allegiance will wain from his constituents back home and grow among those he spends time with in the course of exercising his duties.

After a while he will no longer cast his ballot as you (i. e. majority of his constituents) would in a pure democracy, but as he thinks you should (thus begins the nannyocracy we "enjoy" today.

Paine would be appalled that most members of the "House" expect to get reelected many times and retire with cushy pensions and percs. He'd never suspect the cost of getting elected would be equal to many times the salary.

If he were writing on this post, he'd put the blame for allowing "earmarks"
squarely on us for allowing it to happen.

Whether republican, democrat or communist, one term ought to be plenty.

They are not royalty. They work for us and next time out we ought to keep a bit Paine's advice in mind.

My representative is Meliissa Bean. She's in her second terrm and probably doing a swell job. Next time out, if she's running, she's toast as far as my vote is concerned.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by hsmith

Republicans should have passed an amendment getting rid of them when they held all the ropes.

They failed and are now blaming democrats for doing what they did.

I agree. And when they get back into power they will probably do the same thing the Democrats are doing now.

Sometimes I fucking hate politics.

[Rouger2]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

I think forcing this reality out in the open and putting names on it is a good start. But the real root of the problem is with the party voters. If we keep sending people to Washington whos primary objective is to get as much spending sent back to their State or District this will not end. Everybody is playing the same game in both parties. The whole budget becomes a process of grab bags and local bribes for votes. When the people tell their representatives they have had enough it will stop. Or perhaps do as you suggest and no longer vote for the party candidates at all?

To many people are all for pork barrel spending if it is in their barrel. It is hard for many to think of the big picture. To many people cannot see beyond their own noses. They all want that government money spent in their area no matter what is best for the country whether it is to not spend the money or spend it some where else.

[JaJae]

The day after I made this thread the Citizens Against Government Waste (everyone should bookmark their site btw) released a bulletin.

Citizens Against Government Waste: Murtha to Taxpayers Seeking Transparency: "Tough [Expletive]"

Washington, D.C. - The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW) today slammed Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) and his colleagues for purposefully putting up roadblocks and barriers to hinder earmark accountability and reform. According to Congressional Quarterly Weekly, Rep. Murtha’s response to a reporter’s inquiry regarding the difficulty of matching up earmark information in appropriations bills was: “So, you have to work. Tough [expletive].”


“Rep. Murtha’s vulgar comments, along with the actions of his party, prove that the new majority is hostile to real reform,” said CCAGW President Tom Schatz. “If this Congress were truly interested in transparency, earmark lists would be clear, searchable, comprehensive, and publicly accessible to the average citizen. They should also be making it easier to challenge earmarks.”


New House rules require public disclosure of an earmark’s sponsor, recipient, amount, and justification. The House Appropriation Committees have been including earmarks in committee reports but the reports are unsearchable, and the lists have been difficult to read with information spread throughout the report. This is only one of many examples of members of Congress flouting the rules and playing games with reform.

[motivez]

Pretty sad. The Democrats promised transparency and are now backing off from it because they hold the reins.. power really does corrupt.