Senate votes to end secret 'earmarks'

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The days of lawmakers slipping pet projects into spending bills at the last minute are ending after the Senate approved a new rule Tuesday forcing members to disclose requests for those "earmarks."

The earmarks would have to be posted on the Internet at least two days before legislation comes up for a vote.

The new disclosure requirements -- part of an ethics and lobbying overhaul that's expected to come up for a final vote later this week -- passed 98-0.

The House already approved similar language to combat earmarks, a much-maligned process in which spending items championed by individual lawmakers are buried in appropriations bills to ease them through the legislative machinery. - CNN
__________________
Since the measure passed 98-0, it is obvious that it could have passed before, had it been brought to the floor and voted on. Why wasn't it brought to the floor in the last few Senates? Doesn't the party holding the majority control which issues are sent to the floor (barring filibusters, which requires 60 votes to end, I think)? So why wasn't this brought to the floor before? Does the answer have anything to do with the fact that the number of pork barrel projects has increased at an alarming rate in the last 8 years? Can anyone answer these quiestions? Bueller? Bueller?

Until the recent election, the Republicans acted as if they believed they could do anything they wanted. Had the election gone differently, there'd be no action. Now, they realize that in fact voters will weigh in when things get inarguably awful; but not before. It's highly amusing to hear the R's squeak about minority rights when they overtly, arrogantly, and ham-handedly rejected the concept for six years, until November.

At the risk of sounding pessimistic, I really wonder if this bill will do any good. I image the "posting" will be so cumbersome that it doesn't draw much attention. In the end, what really matters is finding people to represent us who have the citizens best interests at heart. Not so easy a task, I know.

I understand what you are saying, Dwight, and don't disagree. But remember that there are tunnel-visioned people in the US who will work a problem to death. ( @ self) If they find something, it will see the light of day, and, even though some things may get by initially, they will come to light soon enough. Pork has cost this country a great deal, and by that, I don't mean needed government work, but the unnecessary and wasteful pork that benefits only a few.

Quite a while back, I posted a question asking if people would vote against their own interests if it were in the national interest. The response was slim, and disappointing. Basically, it seems it was an "I got mine, you're on your own" attitude, even in AP. This, of course, is one of the problems the country faces, and, while I think the politicians are wrong catering to that attitude, I understand their doing it. It is hard to fault them for giving us what we want.

Why is this seen as a problem of one party or the other? Hasn't it been going on for decades? Hope this jump starts a solution.

It has been going on for years, but the number of the special earmarks has jumped markedly in the last 8 years, and you must remember that, for the most part, the Dems were shut out of introducing bills.

Think I'm making the situation up?

At least a Democratic president gave the GOP congressional leadership a reason to oppose some presidential initiatives. George W. Bush’s election demonstrated the true cost of government without opposition or accountability. The executive was as likely to push spending increases as decreases, which the dutiful Republican legislative majority was loath to deny. And the president, even if he didn’t like a congressional appropriation, such as the transportation bill, was unwilling to disrupt relations by using his veto.

In most cases, however, executive and legislature cheerfully worked in tandem. Fiscal responsibility be damned, both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue wanted a Medicare drug benefit that upped the program’s unfunded liabilities by 50 percent. It was unclear who wanted the bloated, wasteful energy bill more, Congress or the White House. The president advanced Clinton-era initiatives, such as AmeriCorps, pulling Congress along. And no matter how many pork-barrel projects or wasteful earmarks the GOP majority approved, President Bush signed the enactments into law.

Although Republicans continued to mouth platitudes about controlling spending, most had given up any pretense of attempting to protect the public purse. One had to go back to Lyndon Johnson’s unified Democratic government to find a time when domestic spending went up as quickly as under today’s unified Republican government.

The House Republicans, supposedly the party’s ideological core, can’t hide behind the president or Senate. Last fall, Majority Leader Tom DeLay contended that there were no more spending cuts to be had. Until proposals for increased outlays in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina reached ludicrous proportions, fiscal conservatives like Congressmen Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and Mike Pence (R-Ind.) found both leadership and rank and file hostile to their advocacy of offsetting cuts.

Now talk of reform is back in the air. For instance, in running for majority leader, Congressman John Boehner (R-Ohio) presented himself as an advocate of “a vision of smaller, more accountable government.” Yet a couple of years ago he declared that the revolution was over. Yes, Republicans won the presidency (1980) and Congress (1994) based on a program of cutting spending. But voters really didn’t mean it. “Faced by electoral defeats in 1996, Republicans stopped talking about agency elimination and government cuts. It turned out that the American people did not want a major reduction of government,” wrote Boehner. So instead of making a case on principle and risking electoral losses, Republicans would entrench themselves by giving the public what Boehner thought it wanted.

Thus, he joined with his GOP colleagues, and the Democrats, in spending America blind. The only difference was that Republicans preferred to rely on borrow-and-spend rather than tax-and-spend to get elected and re-elected. Republicans played the same budget games as Democrats. The GOP rigged voting rules to stifle the opposition, as had the previous Democratic majority.

Particularly shocking was the increase in pork-barrel projects and special earmarks. The former, which avoid the usual budgetary and administrative scrutiny, are up sevenfold over 1998. Transportation earmarks have multiplied thirtyfold since Democrats wrote legislation during the Reagan administration.

Who wrote this Liberal diatribe? Howard Dean? Hillary Clinton? Common dreams? Al Franken? Nope. It can be found in the February 13, 2006 issue of The American Conservative.* The author is Douglas Bandow, a former senior fellow at Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. (He resigned in 2005 due a payoff scandal involving lobbyist Jack Abramoff.) He now is vice president of policy for Citizen Outreach, a limited-government public policy organization dedicated to putting the “public” back in public policy.

*The American Conservative (TAC) is a biweekly U.S. paleoconservative magazine founded in 2002 by Scott McConnell, Pat Buchanan, and Taki Theodoracopulos, and edited by McConnell. It represents a traditionalist, anti-war and paleoconservative voice against the dominance of what it sees as a neoconservative media establishment.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,

A bit more on earmarks, from http://acta.us/growls/2006/06/ -

June 19, 2006
Promise Her Anything, But Give Her a National Park

Yesterday�s Duluth News Tribune reported that an appropriations subcommittee chaired by Congressman Ralph Regula (R-Ohio) �created the First Ladies National Historic Site in his district in Canton, Ohio.� But it gets better. The paper also reports the historic site was his wife�s inspiration, and she �is the founding president of the nonprofit National First Ladies� Library, which operates the historic site for the National Park Service� for which she receives no salary.

Here�s the kicker, dear taxpayers: �Over the years, Ralph Regula�s subcommittee has inserted more than $4.5 million in special �earmarks� for the first ladies site into federal spending bills. That includes $800,000 to buy a mansion that once belonged to President William McKinley and his wife and $2.5 million to help renovate a nearby bank building that his wife�s group owns.� Ah, the things that are done with taxpayers money. Sheesh!
----
June 10, 2006
Vote for Me, �I�ll Earmark the _ _ _ _ Out of It.� Porks ok for My District.

At last night�s Arlington County Democratic Committee�s Jackson-Jefferson Dinner, according to Scott McCaffrey of the Arlington Sun-Gazette, Moran said �that while he in theory might oppose the fiscal irresponsibility of �earmarks� - funneling money to projects in a member of Congress's district - he understands the value they have to constituents. �When I become chairman [of a House appropriations subcommittee], I'm going to earmark the **** out of it,� Moran buoyantly told a crowd of 450 attending the event.�

According to his bio, Jim Moran (D), who represents Virginia�s 8th district � includes Arlington, Alexandria, Falls Church, and parts of eastern and northern Fairfax County � was a founding member of the New Democrat Coalition, �a group of moderate House Democrats who focus on strengthening fiscal responsibility, education and economic competitiveness.� He is serving his 16th year in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Growls has a record of opposing Congressional pork-barrel spending. See here and here, among others. In addition, Porkbusters provides more on the fight against pork-barrel spending.
----
June 05, 2006
K Street, Congress, and Lobbying

Saturday�s New York Times takes an indepth look at the career of one Congressional staffer turned K Street lobbyist, Letitia White, a former staffer for Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-California). The article is linked to this post at Government Bytes, the blogsite of the National Taxpayers Union, by John Berthoud, NTU�s president.

Berthoud puts the NY Times article into perspective when he writes, �This is the type of incestuous, big-government stuff that so infuriates conservatives across America. Republican politicians on the Hill and their allies in cushy lobbying firms just don't get it. They rant that all the recent Congressional scandals are unfairly tarnishing them. Supposedly, the difference between Duke Cunningham and most Members of Congress is black and white. The truth is that the difference is probably a very slight shade of grey (at most) . . . Sadly, too many people come to Washington to do good and they end up just focusing on doing well. Count Mr. Ashdown among those of us who remain committed to doing good. As for Ms. White, judge for yourself.�

Re: the mention of Mr. Ashdown. He is vice-president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, and his analysis, as mentioned in the NY Times story, �identified earmarks in the current fiscal year benefiting more than two-thirds of Ms. White�s 53 clients.� Reporters may call them earmarks, but taxpayers know them as pork-barrel spending.
----
June 01, 2006
Porkers, Your Tax Dollars, and the �Railroad to Nowhere"

Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) has just selected Mississippi Senators Thad Cochran (R) and Trent Lott (R) as their �Porkers of the Month for adding $700 million for the �railroad to nowhere� to the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2006 (H.R. 4929) . . . The �railroad to nowhere� is one of dozens of earmarks tacked onto the Senate bill, including $3.9 billion for agricultural subsidies, $500 million for a corporate welfare bailout of Northrop Grumman, and $6 million for two Hawaii sugar plantations. It comes on the heels of the controversy over the $223 million �bridge to nowhere� for Alaska in the 2005 highway authorization bill.�

CAGW adds, �The railroad controversy arose after Hurricane Katrina destroyed a portion of the CSX rail line in Mississippi. CSX spent $300 million to fix the line and a company spokesperson said, �There�s absolutely nothing wrong with it.� The $700 million would be spent to divert the tracks a few miles to the north, making way for U.S. 90 to be rebuilt along the rail bed. Sens. Cochran and Lott say the switch is necessary for safety reasons and to protect the track from future hurricanes. However, The Washington Post reported that �much of the rail line along the Gulf Coast would remain in hurricane danger, and the proposed rerouting would affect only a small part.� Read the remainder of the CAGW press release.
--------

To me, the question is no longer "why did this take so long..."

The real question is how long will this last??? The Democrats have control now. And when they have control, they have shown a history of doing anything they want...the voters be damned

I see. It's the Democrats' fault for what they might do after introducing the bill, not the Republicans' fault for not only not introducing the bill (in the last 12 years) but for preventing the Democrats from introducing the bill until now. How insidious of the Dems to trick us by introducing the bill, but planning to ignore it. It's a good thing that we have sharp people here to spot what the Democrats really plan to do.

quote:

Originally posted by Lighteningrodd:
The Democrats have control now. And when they have control, they have shown a history of doing anything they want...the voters be damned

*Bursts out laughing and falls out of his chair as he tries to respond*

Yeeaahh...Sure thing there, Bub.

Ya know, given the track record of the current Administration (which just so happens to be Republican, last I checked), you've got an awful lot of gaul to even suggest such garbage!