http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061212/pl_nm/...ress_funding_dc

 

Well, after much talking in generalities, this is very specific. No earmarks until a system for local project funding can be implemented. Interesting that it took the "Tax and Spend" Dems to go after this instead of the GOP. Good news is, since some GOP'ers are still the old school small government types, this will probably get lots of bipartisan support.

 

Local projects are not always evil, of course. I'd favor something like what the Chicago City Council employs. Money going to infrastructure needs (roads, bridges, sewers, all of that) is spent broadly, but a percentage of it goes to each Alderman to delineate as they see fit. Further, of locally generated sales tax monies (TIF zones), a percentage HAS to go back into THAT neighborhood or zone. The key to implementing a similar system at the federal level is making sure the amount going to each district for this purpose is small, and is distributed based on factors of real importance (population, other national funding in that district, poverty and need, possible ROI, etc.).

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061212/pl_nm/...ress_funding_dc

 

Well, after much talking in generalities, this is very specific. No earmarks until a system for local project funding can be implemented. Interesting that it took the "Tax and Spend" Dems to go after this instead of the GOP. Good news is, since some GOP'ers are still the old school small government types, this will probably get lots of bipartisan support.

 

Local projects are not always evil, of course. I'd favor something like what the Chicago City Council employs. Money going to infrastructure needs (roads, bridges, sewers, all of that) is spent broadly, but a percentage of it goes to each Alderman to delineate as they see fit. Further, of locally generated sales tax monies (TIF zones), a percentage HAS to go back into THAT neighborhood or zone. The key to implementing a similar system at the federal level is making sure the amount going to each district for this purpose is small, and is distributed based on factors of real importance (population, other national funding in that district, poverty and need, possible ROI, etc.).

 

This can be ... and I'm not saying that it is ... can be looked at that the Dems are putting things off until they've had time to brainstorm as to how to push through their earmarks without making it look like that's what they are doing ... or ... letting enough time pass that 'earmarks' are not such a catch phrase like they are now and they can push them through when the pressure abates to a certain extent.

This can be ... and I'm not saying that it is ... can be looked at that the Dems are putting things off until they've had time to brainstorm as to how to push through their earmarks without making it look like that's what they are doing ... or ... letting enough time pass that 'earmarks' are not such a catch phrase like they are now and they can push them through when the pressure abates to a certain extent.

You are right, that could be the case. Its incumbent upon us, the voters, to see if that turns out to be the case.

You are right, that could be the case. Its incumbent upon us, the voters, to see if that turns out to be the case.

 

Exactly! ... But with the liberal media in their pocket ....

Robert Byrd, a man so full of pork that Israel considers him an enemy...has joined in with the rest of the Dems in Giving up Pork for the year until lobbying reform actually happens. This is like Henry VIII settling down with one wife or George W. telling the truth.

I am glad to hear they are going to do something about this. I have no issues with money going to local projects and causes, that is part of what makes representation so important. However, the system now is totally broken. "pork" for bird research should not be added onto a defense bill.

 

The problem comes when someone says "hey, i dont like that little thing you added on there, but I cant vote against giving the soliers armor." If they just put all the "pork" aside into a single bill, I dont have a problem with that. These guys are smarter than i am, they'll figure it out.

I am glad to hear they are going to do something about this. I have no issues with money going to local projects and causes, that is part of what makes representation so important. However, the system now is totally broken. "pork" for bird research should not be added onto a defense bill.

 

The problem comes when someone says "hey, i dont like that little thing you added on there, but I cant vote against giving the soliers armor." If they just put all the "pork" aside into a single bill, I dont have a problem with that. These guys are smarter than i am, they'll figure it out.

 

They already have figured it out. And ... it ain't gonna change.

*raises hand for line item veto*

*raises hand for line item veto*

That would be my second choice, though I think that further politicizes the Prez, which isn't great. More ideally, having Congress implement a transparent, bill-focus system, which it sounds like they are at least talking about. We'll see if they actually implement something. But if that fails miserably, I'd take the line item veto.

I think my problem is that Congress doesn't have enough restraint (with either party in charge) to stick to this. I almost guarantee there's some sort of loophole here.

question about line item veto, once vetoed, does that single item get put back into congress to vote on?

question about line item veto, once vetoed, does that single item get put back into congress to vote on?

I suppose it depends how its written. But if its like any other veto, Congress would need 2/3 majority in both houses ("super-majority") to overrule. There would probably be time limits involved, etc.

alrighty.

This is a welcome development. Additionally, Barack Obama is sponsoring a bill that would list the details of various spending bills on a website so that voters can instantly see who's trying to "emporken" a given bill. That should be supported as well.

 

And I think I just coined a new word. I demand royalties!

This is a welcome development. Additionally, Barack Obama is sponsoring a bill that would list the details of various spending bills on a website so that voters can instantly see who's trying to "emporken" a given bill. That should be supported as well.

 

And I think I just coined a new word. I demand royalties!

Emporken. Nice.

 

Emporkenment. Emporked.

This is a welcome development. Additionally, Barack Obama is sponsoring a bill that would list the details of various spending bills on a website so that voters can instantly see who's trying to "emporken" a given bill. That should be supported as well.

 

And I think I just coined a new word. I demand royalties!

Didn't they already pass that bill? I believe that was the one that Byrd and Stevens put a "secret hold" on last summer, and wound up with the entire political internet going around trying to find out who it was holding up the bill.

the Democrats are not even going to try to stop pork. it's a smokescreen, i'm sure they already know exactly how they are going to get around any new 'ear marking' legislation.

the Democrats are not even going to try to stop pork. it's a smokescreen, i'm sure they already know exactly how they are going to get around any new 'ear marking' legislation.

 

great point. As seen with campaign finance...I'm sure there's a worse beast lying around the corner ready to be unleashed.

the Democrats are not even going to try to stop pork. it's a smokescreen, i'm sure they already know exactly how they are going to get around any new 'ear marking' legislation.

Oh NOOOOOO, they REALLY want to protect us little Americans. PUKE.