Suggestion to new Congress: make "earmarking" illegal across the board.

[graypencil]

Although there are untold numbers of things crying out to accomplished by this new congress, I respectfully suggest that the practice of "earmarking" ( dangling all manner of pork projects unrelated to the basic bill being presented ) be made illegal ACROSS THE BOARD as a first step in gaining control over the lobbyists that have been running roughshod over the individual citizens for years to the tune of untold billions of dollars of oink -oinks hidden from view in bills being submitted.

comments?

[patricia]

Originally Posted by graypencil

Although there are untold numbers of things crying out to accomplished by this new congress, I respectfully suggest that the practice of "earmarking" ( dangling all manner of pork projects unrelated to the basic bill being presented ) be made illegal ACROSS THE BOARD as a first step in gaining control over the lobbyists that have been running roughshod over the individual citizens for years to the tune of untold billions of dollars of oink -oinks hidden from view in bills being submitted.

comments?

Jeffrey Flake, a Morman politician from Arizona has spent the bulk of his career challenging earmarks, and being shot down every single time.

Politicians' lifeblood is bringin' home the bacon to their districts. They will fight to the death to keep earmarks. The locals more often than not re-elect their representative on the basis of how much money or how many government-funded projects he/she was able to bring them.

This is one area in which politics really are local.

[Vince Kargatis]

Originally Posted by patricia

Politicians' lifeblood is bringin' home the bacon to their districts. They will fight to the death to keep earmarks. The locals more often than not re-elect their representative on the basis of how much money or how many government-funded projects he/she was able to bring them.

Agreed, it is, in the end, the voters' fault. Disgusts me.

One alternate way to reduce earmarks without "forbidding" them is to instead forbid omnibus bills entirely, requiring votes on all "line items". That would probably require new rules on voting though, just as difficult. But it would force each rep to consider the merits of the line items (including earmarks). In any case, we're talking major overhaul of the system, so my hopes are not up.

[Gary Sisco]

Mine, either, Vince, but there's an outfit I've been dealing with e-style, that's called downsize.org who've been pushing for a bill requiring all congressional representatives to have read the bill they're voting on. It's amazing how many laws get passed that the reps haven't read, don't know what they're voting for (or against), and so on. They do what they're told by the party leadership or make deals with one another over the passage of other unread bills.

To me, that's some amazing idiocy, from the people's point of view.

Likely a quixotic effort, true, but one that's being made by people because some people at least have had enough of it so that they're willing to work on getting it stopped or at least reduced. The idea that hundreds of reps will vote on a bill that's too long for anyone to read is just stupid, to me. If as you say, and I agree to some extent, these practices have been at least tacitly allowed by the citizenry, then to me it becomes necessary for the people to take the problem in hand themselves and put an end to it. No one guarantees victory, but there isn't a guaranteed victory for anything at all except this: If the people don't control the government, the government will be out of control.

It works both ways, too. Bernie Sanders was viciously and, again, idiotically attacked by his repug opponent in the recent election for having voted against various bills that allegedly did this or that "for the troops" or for the "security of the country against terrorism," or to "lock up child molesters" and so forth. The real story of course was that these things were minor and unrelated things attached to huge defense bills and so forth, to which he was opposed and voted accordingly. One much simpler example than usual, to illustrate what I'm talking about: He was accused of opposing a congressional "resolution" "supporting our troops." What was left unsaid was that the "resolution" included *also* a statement of support for the president and his foreign policy agenda and so forth, which of course Sanders refused to endorse, as would have a large number of VTers who vote for him.

Another good thing about trying to put a halt to this voting on laws no one's read is that, if successful, there would be much fewer laws and shorter ones, so that not only "lawmakers" but anyone could actually read beforehand and *debate* beforehand. Most congressional debates are formulaic show biz. They don't actually debate almost all of any bill that's raised or passed. The system to that extent, to me, is insane.

And the mad plundering of present and future working people's wages in the form of crazed pork spending and intention running of the government so far into the red that there's no historical precedent would come to halt. If they had to attach their names to a transparent law that can be read by the people with reasonable ease, they'd be much more cautious about what they vote for (or against), and likely make much more intelligent decisions, or at least decisions that are less insane than those we've been seeing for many years but much more so than ever before in the past six years, where it's off the graph.

[Noj]

Gary's on the money, as usual. All citizens should demand this of our representatives, across all party lines. Nothing should be voted on which isn't completely and totally understood and wholly debated. There should be no room for bullshit to slide unnoticed. There is no possible argument against it.

[Gary Sisco]

Unless you have something to hide, which many of them very clearly do, There's no other reason for the practice.

Check out downsize.org. Should be easily found. It's kind of libertarian oriented but not rigidly ideological. They haven't proposed anything yet that seemed less than reasonable or even just common sensical, to me. I give them a small auto contribution each month. Downsize and Doctors Without Borders, each get the same every month from me because they don't do any work I find offensive and plenty that I support. If I had a medical skill, I'd have long ago gone to work for Doctors Without Borders. They have all of my respect.

[graypencil]

I thoroughly agree that all bills should be kept to a length so as to be readable ( and UNDERSTOOD ) by legislators who are tasked with voting on them. ( my suggestion about the dangling pork earmarks would play a part in this process )

My first question is :

Who would be tasked with making sure the legislators actually DID read ( and by implication understood ) the bills they were to be voting on ?

I also have to unfortunately agree with those who have pointed out that the lovers of the dangling pork are us ..the local "vested interests".

"We has met the enemy ..and
they bee's us " ( Pogo aka Walt Kelly )

[Gary Sisco]

Thing is, if they didn't read it but it was short and transparent enough for anyone else to read, they'd have zero excuse for having voted for (or against) whatever it was. None. Not even the excuse of having voted for some idiocy in the interests of something worthwhile that was attached, as is often the case, now.

For example, Bernie Sanders voted for Clinton's fascoid Crime Bill that was as authoritarian as the US could get (at the time, not today), and for his excuse when confronted by angry people who support him, he said he voted for it because there was money attached to it for battered women's shelters in Vermont.

Not a good enough excuse, and he knew it. So did everyone else. He was roundly mocked at the time and rightly so.

[Robert de St. Loup]

New thread idea: Suggestion to fox: stop eating the hens you're guarding.

[Gary Sisco]

http://www.downsizedc.org

[patricia]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

Thing is, if they didn't read it but it was short and transparent enough for anyone else to read, they'd have zero excuse for having voted for (or against) whatever it was. None. Not even the excuse of having voted for some idiocy in the interests of something worthwhile that was attached, as is often the case, now.

For example, Bernie Sanders voted for Clinton's fascoid Crime Bill that was as authoritarian as the US could get (at the time, not today), and for his excuse when confronted by angry people who support him, he said he voted for it because there was money attached to it for battered women's shelters in Vermont.

Not a good enough excuse, and he knew it. So did everyone else. He was roundly mocked at the time and rightly so.

But, Gary, isn't it more likely that the worthy bill would be the headliner, eg. body armour, armoured vehicles etc. and that the pork would be on page 32, 46 and 79? So, theoretically, a vote for body armour would also pass a vote for a monument to Senator Whojackapivie in Armpit Wisconsin, a fountain somewhere else, and a new limo for Senator Whatshisname in wherever??
The add-ons are relatively innocuous, even ignored, certainly not debated, in order to pass the big bill.

[Gary Sisco]

The proposal is exactly to make that impossible, Pat. What you are describing is no different than what exists already, except that bills today are often thousands of pages long.

If anyone among the people is too lazy to bother reading what's clear and transparent, that's their own fault. No one else's.

There's no justification at all for these "earmarks." The only reason to have them at all is to sneak things by the public -- today to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. Many people in the US today assume -- wrongly -- that the huge deficit spending of this Congress has been on account of the war. It hasn't. The war accounts for no more than a third of it, and even that is being too generous as a lot of the war spending is off the books and not counted in the budget. The general in charge of the entire US Army this year refused to submit a budget *at all* because the Chimp-in-Charge refused to let him count in the money necessary for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. He replied that in that case it was nonsensical to submit a budget at all and so didn't. An elegant protest and wonderful schtup, however you look at it.

There is no honest reason for this kind of trickery spending.

[Gary Sisco]

Sanders argument was absurd, Pat. The money he was talking about for VT battered women's shelters was about 10 grand, buried in a bill that was way into the billions, unimaginable money. It was a pathetic attempt on his part to justify voting for an incredibly authoritarian, and very arguably racist, body of law for which we can rightly blame Clinton. Sanders always thinks he has to please the dim leadership but now he's in a position in the Senate where he could force them into pleasing him and his supporters. If he chooses to. Time will tell on that. I'd make the party pay and pay dearly for my vote in many cases. They'd be forced to scratch a back to their left for a change. We'll see now how independent he actually is, now that he's one in 100 instead of one in 400-odd.

[patricia]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

The proposal is exactly to make that impossible, Pat. What you are describing is no different than what exists already, except that bills today are often thousands of pages long.

If anyone among the people is too lazy to bother reading what's clear and transparent, that's their own fault. No one else's.

I wasn't making a proposal of what I would like to see done, but rather attempting to show how they are done and that stupid, local stuff gets tacked on to an important bill in order to sneak them through.

I think that it's pretty obvious that the dozens of pages long bills don't get read and debated thoroughly before they are voted on. How can they, if the member only gets the full bill a day or a few days before the vote?

It's out and out theft of the taxpayers' money, IMO.
Not even submitting a budget, but simply allocating the money, by divine decree is grand larceny. Bush is, by doing that, a thief.

[Gary Sisco]

I wish it was dozens of pages. They are much, much longer than that. I've seen photos of some laws, as written, that were as tall as I am.

The general's action was correct. He was ordered to submit a lie of a budget and he refused. As would anyone honest.

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by patricia

Jeffrey Flake, a Morman politician from Arizona has spent the bulk of his career challenging earmarks, and being shot down every single time.

Flake's my kind of guy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Flake

[crawjo]

Originally Posted by Vince Kargatis

Agreed, it is, in the end, the voters' fault. Disgusts me.

Pretty much all the problems in Washington are the voters' fault, ultimately. We try to pretend that it is the politicians who are stupid, but somebody's been electing them all these years. And check out all the opinion polls on any subject you care to name: they show that people often don't know what the fuck they are talking about. Everybody is ignorant to greater or lesser degrees.

[walto]

Earmarking, logrolling, us brilliantos being smarter than all the dumb voters. It's all democracy, baby!

[Dr Dave]

Of all they myriad forms of corruption, earmarking seems the most transparently obvious and crooked. A vote results in a direct economic benefit for a particular entity, whether it's a municipality or a business, or even an individual. I would guess the practice of earmarking has had a significant influence on the Federal deficit. I mean, who can resist giving away somebody else's money and knowing you'll get all the credit?

Really, there oughta be a law...

[Sandi22]

In Hawaii, they say that without pork, they would just die. It is so very hard to make a living there, so when the pork comes rolling in, they thank their lucky stars. It gives them jobs, this buiding of freeways to nowhere, much like the bridge and roads in Alaska, but with Hawaii, there is a big need. Still too many Hawaiian's have the need to move to the mainland to try to live a better life. Not up on how it is in Alaska. Here everyone says Alaska is the place to be, that jobs are good and the pay is better. Not so sure that's the case any longer, but it was a few years back.

This tacking on odd and useless bills to drain the budget for little good reason, does need to stop. Poor Hawaii if this does happen, but it seems to cause more problems than it helps with so many attachments being added on by unscrupulous politicians. Not sure a line item veto would be a good answer, but there needs to be a way found to eliminate the abuse.

[Monte Smith]

Earmarking is, I guess, the new name for pork. Pork benefits constituents. It's not in the interest of a politician if pork benefits a small number of voters, so usually pork benefits a large number of voters in a state. Witness the famous bridge to nowhere. That's great for Alaska! Jobs, income, bridge, nowhere.

Witness the entire state of West Virginia. If there is a Port-a-Potty over there that isn't named for Robert Byrd, I haven't pissed in it.

This is the democracy that some of our founders critiqued when they worried that the electorate would vote themselves the contents of the federal treasury. That's a good critique. As wonderful as were our founders, they understood us well.

Yes, get rid of earmarking. Although the notion that all congressmen need to know all clauses of all bills is utopic; we run a big country here. And you are not going to get rid of interest-based or special interest-based politics, until you change men from having stomachs and greed to just having principles and good intentions. Amen.

[Scott Dolan]

If they shitcan earmarking they won't be able to use their favorite hitman Stevens to kill any unwanted bills by inserting his bridge to nowhere project.

[Dr Dave]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

If they shitcan earmarking they won't be able to use their favorite hitman Stevens to kill any unwanted bills by inserting his bridge to nowhere project.

[graypencil]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

If they shitcan earmarking they won't be able to use their favorite hitman Stevens to kill any unwanted bills by inserting his bridge to nowhere project.

I have an excellent idea for a place for Sen.
( still unfortunately with us ) Stevens to insert his "bridge"

[Gordon B]

A friend sent me this excerpt from a Newsweek article.

A former Houston pest exterminator and archfoe of the Environmental Protection Agency, DeLay gave off a cold,
hard look that was the polar opposite of sunny Reaganism. He delighted in his "Hammer" nickname. From the
beginning of Gingrich's tenure, the GOP's K Street offensive had warned lobbying firms along Washington's K
Street corridor that they would be wise to hire Republicans if they wanted access. There was nothing especially
new about such a partisan approach to the influence-peddling business. The Republicans had only to look across
the aisle to study a past master at shaking the corporate tree—former representative Tony Coelho, the onetime
chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

But DeLay brought a new brazenness to the game. Before long, lobbyists could be seen in committee rooms
writing legislation. With corporate coziness came the abandonment of fiscal restraint. Committee chairmen now
routinely handed out "earmarks," special provisions authorizing spending for members' pet projects. In 1987,
President Ronald Reagan vetoed a highway bill because it had 152 earmarks. In 2005, President Bush signed a
transportation bill with 6,371 earmarks.

[Gordon B]

The LA Times published this today.

Speaker-to-be is no stranger to earmarking
Rep. Nancy Pelosi has promised to change the controversial practice, a process she's celebrated using for her district.
By Noam N. Levey and Richard Simon, Times Staff Writers
November 13, 2006

Mark my words
Mark my words
click to enlarge
WASHINGTON — When the House passed a massive spending bill last November, Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi made sure her constituents knew what they were getting.

"Pelosi Secures $115 Million for San Francisco Transportation, Housing, Science and Arts," she proclaimed in a news release.

It wasn't an unusual announcement. Like many of her colleagues in Congress, Pelosi for years has celebrated bringing home the bacon to her district.

But now — as Pelosi prepares to take over the House after an election in which scandal helped drive Republicans from power — she is promising changes to the controversial practice of earmarking.

Earmarks are spending provisions dropped into bills — often anonymously, at the last minute and without public scrutiny. They were at the center of several high-profile scandals that undermined the GOP this year, when earmarks benefited special interests.

Pelosi has not been linked to any impropriety. And not all the federal funding Pelosi boasts about came from earmarks. But the presumed new House speaker has proved a champion practitioner of the earmarking process over the years.

During the last congressional session, her district received far more earmarks than a typical district, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan watchdog that tracks congressional spending.

Pelosi has helped direct tens of millions of dollars to subway and bridge projects in San Francisco. She has secured money to restore a historic schooner and convert the old San Francisco Mint into a history museum.

Citizens Against Government Waste, a critic of such "pork-barrel" spending, has calculated that Pelosi's district received nearly $31.3 million through earmarks in the last two fiscal years.

Among the biggest earmarks identified by the group were $5.6 million for the UC San Francisco neurology department and $4 million for Hunters Point Naval Shipyard. Both were inserted into the 2006 defense spending bill.

Three years ago, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that Pelosi had secured $1 million for the University of San Francisco's Leo T. McCarthy Center for Public Service and the Common Good, which was started by her longtime advisor and campaign treasurer.

At the time, the 10-term congresswoman from California's 8th District said the center had received the funding on its merits.

Pelosi has defended her earmarking, including at a news conference in March. "There are many earmarks that are very worthy," she said. "All of mine, as a matter of fact."

And she has reaped the rewards. San Francisco's largest newspaper has extensively covered the millions of dollars in federal money she has helped bring home.

Pelosi says there is a distinction between earmarks for public projects, which she defends and are typically publicized, and those she calls "special-interest earmarks."

"It is the special-interest earmarks that are the ones that go in there in the dark of night that they don't want anybody to see, and that nobody does see, and that are voted upon," she said in March.

Special-interest projects, which helped fuel several recent congressional scandals, are often anonymously slipped into spending bills by lawmakers at lobbyists' behest.

Pelosi's approach to the issue is certain to come under renewed scrutiny. In one of her first acts as speaker, she has pledged to crack down on earmarking.

"I would just as soon do away with all of them," she told reporters this week.

This year, Pelosi was among those who assailed Republicans' use of the practice.

And when the House adopted a rule in September requiring authors of some, but not all, earmarks to be identified, she called it a "political gimmick to make it look as if something is happening."

The current Democratic proposal would not prohibit earmarks, but it would expand the requirement to identify earmarkers.

"It won't take long for the American public to realize that Nancy Pelosi and company were all talk and no action on earmark reform," said Kevin Madden, a spokesman for House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio).

"Pelosi has been one of the biggest proponents and beneficiaries of pork spending."

Pelosi spokeswoman Jennifer Crider dismissed the criticism, promising that under Pelosi's leadership earmarks would not be abused as she said they were under the Republicans.

But budget watchdogs, who decried the GOP majority's use of earmarking over the last 12 years, are watching warily.

When a group of them sent Pelosi a letter last week noting that they were encouraged by her "stated support for real earmark reform," they closed with a warning: "We hope you and your colleagues will show the same dedication to enacting these reforms in the majority as you did to promoting them in the minority."

[Gordon B]

Note: CREW was founded by a former aide to Conyers and Schumer

Public Statement

November 13, 2006
CREW Blasts Pelosi Endorsement of Unethical Murtha for Majority Leader

Washington, DC - Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) questioned soon-to-be House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) commitment to eradicating corruption with her endorsement of one of the most unethical members in Congress, Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), to be Majority Leader of the House of Representatives.

Rep. Murtha was listed in CREW's report Beyond DeLay: The 20 Most Corrupt Members of Congress (and five to watch). As reported in the study and by the news media, Rep, Murtha has been involved in a number of pay-to play schemes involving former staffers and his brother, Robert "Kit" Murtha.

Eight incumbents in CREW's report lost their races to ethics issues.

CREW's report can be found at www.beyonddelay.org.
http://www.beyonddelay.org/summaries/murtha.php

[Scott Dolan]

Shit, don't forget the front page NYT story on him and his vote brokering. I'm sure al-Qoda didn't miss it.

Funny how he quickly became the sympathetic figure of the party just because he spoke out against the war.

[Dr Dave]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

...just because he spoke out against the war.

If you will recall, it was a rather big deal at the time.

[Scott Dolan]

So what? Does that trump all the other shit he does?