POL - Earmarks staying private

[Flasch186]

BOOOO on the Democrats....this is an easy one and they are blowing it. On CNN though so Im sure its skewed to make the Left look worse than they actually are.




Despite promises, few in House make earmark requests public
POSTED: 12:12 a.m. EDT, June 19, 2007

(CNN) -- Despite the new Democratic congressional leadership's promise of "openness and transparency" in the budget process, a CNN survey of the House found it nearly impossible to get information on lawmakers' pet projects.

Staffers for only 31 of the 435 members of the House contacted by CNN between Wednesday and Friday of last week supplied a list of their earmark requests for Fiscal Year 2008, which begins on October 1, or pointed callers to Web sites where those earmark requests were posted.

Of the remainder, 68 declined to provide CNN with a list, and 329 either didn't respond to requests or said they would get back to us, and didn't. (Find out how your representative responded)

"As long as we are not required to release them, we're not going to," said Dan Turner, an aide to Rep. Jim McCrery, R-Louisiana.

Seven members of the House said they had no earmark requests.

Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Illinois) released a list of his earmark requests on Monday.

In 2006, Congress approved a record $29 billion in earmarks --those spending requests derided as "pork" that fund everything from road construction and research grants to ski lifts and minor league baseball diamonds. Legislators view these projects as important proof that they are serving their constituents back home.

The 2006 total was 6.2 percent more than 2005's $27.3 billion.

When Democrats regained control of Congress last fall, they promised to create the most honest, open Congress in history.

"We will bring transparency and openness to the budget process and to the use of earmarks," Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi said in December 2006, "and we will give the American people the leadership they deserve."

Democrats said that Republicans had corrupted the earmark process while they controlled Congress.

Earlier this year, the House implemented rules changes that require greater disclosure of earmark requests, and the Senate passed a bill that would require lawmakers to post a list of their earmark requests on the Internet. The bill, however, has not passed the House.

Last week, the issue came to a head as the House got bogged down deliberating the budget for the Department of Homeland Security Department.

Republicans accused the Democratic leadership of attempting to bypass debate on questionable earmarks when House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wisconsin, said he would not attach them to legislation until those bills had passed the Senate and House and had been sent to conference committees to work out differences.

Obey said there wasn't time to scrutinize the 32,000 earmark requests and keep the legislation moving. He blamed having to "clean up after" the Republican-controlled Congress for why the requests wouldn't be examined in time. (Watch Obey tell the GOP that Dems had to clean up "your mess" before addressing earmarks Video)

But House Republicans pointed out that position was counter to Democratic campaign promises and Obey was forced to back down and allow Republicans weeks to examine the earmark requests.

Critics said that doesn't play well with reform-minded taxpayers.

"Their behavior isn't better than the last Congress and in some ways worse because they know they have those requests," said Ryan Alexander, president of Taxpayers for Common Sense. "We know they have more than 30,000 letters asking for specific earmarks and they're not letting us see them."

Tom Schatz, of Citizens Against Government Waste, said the compromise is a step in the right direction but short of promised reforms -- all requests won't be made public, only the ones for which spending requests are approved.

Originally there was going to be no disclosure, now we have some disclosure," Schatz said. "And yet again the judgment will be made by the Appropriations Committee staff."

But others like Public Citizen say the compromise is far from what was promised.

"It violates the whole spirit of the reform, said Craig Holman, legislative representative for the nonpartisan group's Congress Watch.

"We really did expect that earmark requests would be an open book so that all of America could sit there and take a look at who's requesting what earmarks," Holman said.

[albionmoonlight]

What's interesting is that I don't know if it would really hurt politicians if these were all made public.

How many people are really going to sit down and leaf through 30,000+ of these?

And, while watchdog groups will point out the worst examples, I still can't imagine that hurting the politicians back home. If the representative from eastern Kansas manages to get $10,000,000 in federal money to build an unnecessary grain elevator, that might play badly everywhere in the country except in eastern Kansas. Where it will play well.

For the vast majority of the members of Congress--who will never participate in a national election--I can't see what making these public really hurts.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

What's interesting is that I don't know if it would really hurt politicians if these were all made public.

How many people are really going to sit down and leaf through 30,000+ of these?

And, while watchdog groups will point out the worst examples, I still can't imagine that hurting the politicians back home. If the representative from eastern Kansas manages to get $10,000,000 in federal money to build an unnecessary grain elevator, that might play badly everywhere in the country except in eastern Kansas. Where it will play well.

For the vast majority of the members of Congress--who will never participate in a national election--I can't see what making these public really hurts.

exactly...like i said, this IMO is an easy one.

[Ksyrup]

I can still remember how poorly Robert Byrd came off attempting to defend some pork of his (I think he got millions to build a road in VA that essentially went nowhere) years ago in a 20/20 interview, I think it was. He was so condescending and kept accusing the interviewer (I think it was John Stossel) of "twaddlizing" the issue. I agree that the vast majority of these politicians will never be held accountable on a nationwide basis, but to this day, I still remember Byrd because he was in a position to have to defend this and he came off looking horrible. I suspect these people just don't want to be put in that position to begin with.

[JPhillips]

I don't think it's so innocuous. A lot of these earmarks go to specific companies, especially in defense bills. It just so happens, coincidentally of course, that these companies give out big contributions to certain Congressman.

If these were all made public there would be a lot more evidence of the direct line between appropriations and contributions. Or to put it more simply, the extent of corruption would be much clearer.

If you don't believe me look at the Duke Cunningham case and the recent revelations about Sen. Stevens.

[Toddzilla]

Well, how does it _help_ by keeping them private?

Agreed with OP, this is a case where the Dems swung and missed. Boo indeed.

[chesapeake]

CNN had an intern call offices and ask for copies Member's private correspondence with other Members. Unsurprisingly, not many offices complied. Any press secretary worth his/her salt can smell a hatchet job like this one coming down the pipe.

All Congressional earmarks approved by the Appropriations Committee and included in the relevant bills will be published for all to see prior to consideration the House floor. The requesting Member of Congress's name will be attached to the earmark. The Senate is using similar procedures.

The 32k number is a red herring. Only a fraction of those will emerge from the screening process and eventually be included in a bill for consideration.

[PilotMan]

JP is clearly on the money with this one. Corruption is so thick on both sides that both sides are afraid to do anything to police it. This is one area where I think that congress is going against the public desires. I think that most people would want this info public. Especially in light of the recent corruption investigations.

[Buccaneer]

My god, people truly expected things to be different/better???!!!!!??? Wow, just wow.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

My god, people truly expected things to be different/better???!!!!!??? Wow, just wow.

vote for me and they will be

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

CNN had an intern call offices and ask for copies Member's private correspondence with other Members. Unsurprisingly, not many offices complied. Any press secretary worth his/her salt can smell a hatchet job like this one coming down the pipe.

All Congressional earmarks approved by the Appropriations Committee and included in the relevant bills will be published for all to see prior to consideration the House floor. The requesting Member of Congress's name will be attached to the earmark. The Senate is using similar procedures.

Exactly. Plus, this article ignores the rule changes made, and laws passed by the 110th Congress to deal with earmarks and the undue influence of lobbyists. Even with Obey's bluster, the process for identifying, questioning, debating upon, and voting on earmarks is considerably more transparent and open in this Congress. Maybe everyone wants reform to happen overnight, but it's going to take the Democrats a little longer than 6 months to overcome a 12-year explosion in earmarks governed by a Republican congress.

[SFL Cat]

The only difference between Congressional and Senate Republicans and Democrats is the rhetoric they spout when trying to get elected.

[MrBigglesworth]

For the second straight day, minority House Republicans ground the House to a standstill Wednesday as they drove home their objections to a Democratic plan to deny a floor vote on lawmakers' thousands of pet projects.

Public anger over the surging number of special member projects called earmarks -- derided as pork barrel spending -- was a factor in the Republicans' loss of House control last November, GOP members concede, and now they say they've gotten religion on the need for openness in government.

Charges of hypocrisy flew in floor speeches as House leaders huddled behind closed doors to seek a way out of a dispute that Republicans said showed Democrats led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi had backed down on promises of openness and disclosure made when they took power last January.

Democrats had hoped this week to pass four of the 12 annual bills that pay for federal operations beginning Oct. 1. Instead, Republicans have offered 116 amendments to a $37.4 billion Homeland Security spending bill -- the first of the bills on the floor -- in a bid to stall it. And on Tuesday they offered repeated motions to adjourn the House, each requiring a vote, keeping a wary House in session until 2:10 a.m. Wednesday.

Democrats argued Republicans were engaging in partisan attacks to try to embarrass Pelosi. They charged the GOP lawmakers lacked credibility on earmarks, the number of which exploded during their 12 years of House rule.

But Republicans cried foul over a plan by Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., for the House to pass all of the dozen spending bills without any earmarks.

Obey said House members from both parties -- even while expressing concern about rising government spending -- had inundated his committee with 33,000 earmark requests. He said it would take the committee's staff four weeks to study all those pork barrel requests and pare them to a manageable level.

Obey proposed to put the earmarks into the bill as the House prepares to confer with the Senate to reconcile the two chambers' different versions of the spending bills. Obey promised to disclose the list of the earmarks a month before such a conference, which Democrats hope to hold by late summer, so members and the public will have time to scrutinize and react to the projects.

But once the House-Senate conferees agree on a final bill, the rules of the House and Senate bar members from amending the legislation to remove individual items. That means, the Republicans charge, that Obey alone will decide on billions of dollars of federal spending affecting projects in practically every House district.

"The Obey policy is indefensible ... Obey's slush fund is indefensible," Rep. Adam Putnam, R-Fla., said as the House debated the Homeland Security spending bill, which provides a 6 percent increase over President Bush's request and would be 13 percent more than was spent last year.

"The new majority ran on a policy of openness, honesty and candor, and I suggest this is a policy that hardly promotes openness, honesty or candor," said Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga.

When Democrats took over the House last January, they passed rules saying that members behind all earmarks had to be identified, and that earmarks on all spending bills would be identified "before members are asked to vote on them," as Rules Committee Chairwoman Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., told the House.

Taxpayers for Common Sense, an outside watchdog group, said earmarks must be disclosed early in the process.

"Taxpayers have the fundamental right to know about all earmarks. Both congressional and administration projects should be disclosed in legislation before the full House casts a single vote," the group's president, Ryan Alexander, said in a statement.

Obey said that since he became chairman in January when Democrats formally took back House control, his committee has been swamped, in part because Republicans last year failed to complete the appropriations process.

That meant Congress had to spend last January finishing up that work, in which the thousands of earmarks the old Republican Congress had sought were killed for this fiscal year. He also said his work was hampered because Republicans had removed many of the committee's staff before ceding control. And then he had to deal with the long fight with Bush over Iraq war funding.

In 2005, according to the White House budget office, under Republican control of Congress there were 13,492 earmarks in appropriations bills totaling almost $19 billion.

"Our Republican friends are desperately looking for anything to squawk about because they haven't been able to find anything substantive to complain about," Obey said.

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., heaped scorn on the Republicans. "What's funny is that many of the Republicans who are fighting for the right to vote against earmarks ... never met an earmark they didn't like," he said.

Even before the Republicans dug in their heels, the House faced a daunting timetable. Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said he would keep the House in session into Saturday to pass the first four spending bills and send them to the Senate. That timetable is now in tatters.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...NGK4QESUB1.DTL

I wish I could buy stock in things like, "The Dems will try and get things done, the GOP will try everything at their disposal to stop things from getting done then blame the Dems for not getting anything done, and then Bucc will put a pox on both their houses."

But once the House-Senate conferees agree on a final bill, the rules of the House and Senate bar members from amending the legislation to remove individual items. That means, the Republicans charge, that Obey alone will decide on billions of dollars of federal spending affecting projects in practically every House district.

"The Obey policy is indefensible ... Obey's slush fund is indefensible," Rep. Adam Putnam, R-Fla

I don't understand the GOP's point here. They say Obey will be able to put in anything he wants because he will put it in after it's passed in committee, but they will be put in before the bill even goes to committee. Then they will have committee and the final vote when it goes back to the House to vote on it.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

The only difference between Congressional and Senate Republicans and Democrats is the rhetoric they spout when trying to get elected.

See, that's bullshit. I'm not a fan of either, but clearly we both have issues that matter to us where they make a difference. For examples, if you're looking to come across as a gay-bashing environmentally clueless idiot, James Inhofe is your man. If you want pork, pork, and more pork with little regard for ethics, Robert Byrd or Ted Stevens are available. Consequently, if you want a pro-business but semi-libertarian option, Jeff Flake is available.

[bulletsponge]

if terrorist blew up capital hill with all the members in it, would it be a day of mourning or celebration?

[CraigSca]

What was that Tom Clancy book where that occurred? My favorite one by him...I'll have to read it again (once I remember the title ).

[Buccaneer]

Debt of Honor. The one that deals with the aftermath (i.e., refilling Congress) was Executive Orders. The series beginning with Sum of All Fears and ending with Executive Orders were one of the most fun reads I've had. It's too bad that after that, Clancy become quite unreadable.

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by bulletsponge

if terrorist blew up capital hill with all the members in it, would it be a day of mourning or celebration?

I'm glad my death would amuse you and countless others, no doubt.

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

I don't understand the GOP's point here. They say Obey will be able to put in anything he wants because he will put it in after it's passed in committee, but they will be put in before the bill even goes to committee. Then they will have committee and the final vote when it goes back to the House to vote on it.

The irony of this situation is that, if the anti-government folks had to pick someone to be in charge of the earmarking process in the House, Dave Obey would be the guy they'd choose. Tough, smart, no-nonsense and a real Wisconsin "good government" type.

Obey would have been the hall monitor in your junior high school. But you wouldn't have taken him out behind the gym to beat him up because, when it got right down to it, he was honest and fair and you really had forged your hall pass.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

I'm glad my death would amuse you and countless others, no doubt.

truly? are you on the hill? or are you just a sit on your ass wanna be NFL team owner like the rest of us?

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

truly? are you on the hill? or are you just a sit on your ass wanna be NFL team owner like the rest of us?

I think I qualify as both. I left out an important point in that post.

Originally Posted by chesapeake
I'm glad my death would amuse you and countless others, no doubt.

Welcome to Hollywood!