Say Anything Blog

I hate to suggest this, but other reports I’ve read suggest that GOP legislators in difficult districts have let him know that they’re out of there if they cannot pull in the pork.

For those who haven’t been following this story, the earmarks in question weren’t actually part of the bill sent to President Bush but were instead inserted into committee reports with the Democrat leadership arrogantly assuming that Bush would sign the legislation and the Treasury would fund the appropriations anyway.  Unfortunately for them, someone was paying attention and fiscally conservative groups have been trying to get Bush to refuse funding.

This isn’t some new Democratic trick, folks.  The vast majority of earmarks (which grew exponentially under a Republican-led Congress, by the way) have ALWAYS been merely inserted into report language, not in actual bill language.  This is how earmarking is done—by Democrats AND by Republicans.  And the fiscally conservative groups have been trying to refuse funding for years—against both R and D led Congresses.

Now, please continue to go after earmarks all you want—that’s a legitimate concern.  Just please don’t act like the Dems are doing something new or sneaky.

Rob:

For those who haven’t been following this story, the earmarks in question weren’t actually part of the bill sent to President Bush but were instead inserted into committee reports with the Democrat leadership arrogantly assuming that Bush would sign the legislation and the Treasury would fund the appropriations anyway. 

To clarify a bit, earmarks such as the ones in question are approved at the committee level and the justifications are included in the committee reports that accompany the legislation. The legislation is voted for by the entire Senate and House bodies with the accompanying documentation.

So Rob, your description is incorrect. You are thinking of legislation added duration House-Senate reconciliation, which is a very different thing.  That is not done very often intentionally (sometimes House & Senate versions both get included, doubling a “plus up”, other times an important line-item gets left out entirely) because of the political fire it would draw…

It doesn’t seem appropriate to place justification for a particular legislation into that legislation itself, especially if there is a permanent record pertaining to how the earmark.  What Bush is pushing them to do is increase the transparency of how the earmarked legislation gets picked, including better justifications.

It should be noted that simply because a piece of legislation may be considered an earmark, doesn’t mean necessarily that it is being poorly spent or is equivalent to “pork”.

Anyway, so here we go again.  Bush is doing something constructive that addresses the transparency of appropriation bills.  And gets zero credit for it.

All because some retard named Jeff Flake makes a big stink about it.

Just please don’t act like the Dems are doing something new or sneaky.

mdmdc,

You seem to be endorsing a “business as usual” approach to the question of earmarks.  That’s crap.  Many of us who object to Democrats engaged in this sort of virulent dishonesty with taxpayers’ money were just as upset with Republicans when they held the congressional reins of power and did the same thing.

Just as importantly, it is Democrats who are now in charge of Congress, both houses… Democrats who campaigned against Republican misdeeds with the loud promise to “clean up the swamp.” Being held to one’s promises is how grown-ups behave.  There’s no reason to expect anything less of Democrat leaders, or to lower our expectation merely because Democrats are known to be so much less likely to live up to any sort of ethical standards.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

So, let’s spend more money and have tax cuts.

We’ll just have to borrow more, which will lead to printing more, which is the same thing as printing inflation, which ends up not being a tax cut.

Here’s a surprising statement from Rob’s linked article:

A new tally by the White House Office of Management and Budget shows that the 2008 spending bills signed by Mr. Bush include more than 11,700 earmarks, totaling $16.9 billion. By the White House count, the number was down 1,754 from 2005, and the amount of money was down $2.1 billion, or 11 percent.

EWS48:

We’ll just have to borrow more, which will lead to printing more, which is the same thing as printing inflation, which ends up not being a tax cut.

If you’re going to worry about that, start with entitlement spending… That’s about 65% of the budget.  Earmarks are less than 1%.

Bat One—

Please see the last lines of my post—“Now, please continue to go after earmarks all you want—that’s a legitimate concern.  Just please don’t act like the Dems are doing something new or sneaky.” So no, I’m not endorsing a business as usual approach.  Rather, I’m simply asking for some accuracy in the story about the FY 2008 appropriations earmarks.  Yes, Democrats should be taken to task for earmarking, and for not living up to their promises to curtail them, as should Republicans who speak against them and don’t follow through.

Again, I just want accuracy, not ignorance, in how the issue is presented and discussed—and the way this was presented in the initial posting was that the Dems had tried some slick new earmark trickery (not putting it in the legislation that gets to Bush but rather just sticking it in report language) and “arrogantly” thought that Bush would sign and the Treasury would pay anyway.  To use your phrase, “that’s crap.” The Dems didn’t think no one would notice or something—it’s merely “business as usual,” as you wrote.  This is how earmarking is done.

So, hit ‘em for not living up to their promises—that’s fine, though I find it a pretty weak argument given that there’s really no viable alternative, as evidenced by both Dem and Rep controlled Congresses.

And I didn’t know that “Democrats are known to be so much less likely to live up to any sort of ethical standards.” Got stats on that one?  Thanks, Bat.

So, let’s spend more money and have tax cuts.

We’ll just have to borrow more, which will lead to printing more, which is the same thing as printing inflation, which ends up not being a tax cut.

ews48,

I believe this thread is about earmarks, not about any sort fiscal stimulus package contemplated by either the White House or Congressional Democrats.

Still, its interesting that like so many others, you’ve given not one thought to spending restraint in your rather dubious analysis.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

...though I find it a pretty weak argument given that there’s really no viable alternative, as evidenced by both Dem and Rep controlled Congresses.

mdmdc,

I believe it is you who has put forth a weak argument here… at least from an ethical point of view.  This reminds me of nothing so much as the 13 year old girl who, confronted with the fact that she’s been sexually active with her boyfriend rationalizes her actions by telling her parents that “all the girls are doing it.”

Granted, the single greatest force in the universe may be inertia ("We’ve always done it that way!"), but that hardly makes the practice proper… or justifiable.

As for the dishonesty of Democrats there are no scientific statistics that I’m aware of, but in keeping with current subject matter, let me offer an appropriate starting point… Pay-Go.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

I’m not sure how many more times I can agree with you about earmarking, Bat.  Please, continue to go after it.  Please, continue to go after the Democrats for not living up to their promises about it.  I’ve said both in my previous posts.  All I was trying to point out (and I can see that it is pointless to keep trying) is that the way the original post reads, it seems as if the Democrats are trying something really sneaky and new, which is not the case!  That’s it—that’s my whole point.  Wasn’t meant to be a monumental revelation, wasn’t meant to promote Democrats, wasn’t meant to put down Republicans.  It was merely meant to shed some light on what was going on with the FY 2008 appropriations earmarks.  The way the post was written was unclear at best and biased at worst.  I promise I won’t try to explain it again.