11,900 earmarks in 2007, 65% for democrats, 35% for republicans...

[actsnoblemartin]

Your thoughts.

[OCA]

Your thoughts.

What in the fuck are you rambling about now Raymond?

[82Marine89]

11,900 earmarks in 2007, 65% for democrats, 35% for republicans...

I don't care what the breakdown is, it's still 11,900 earmarks being paid for with my tax dollars. It's still 11,900 earmarks that aren't authorized by the Constitution.

[Kathianne]

I don't care what the breakdown is, it's still 11,900 earmarks being paid for with my tax dollars. It's still 11,900 earmarks that aren't authorized by the Constitution.

http://porkbusters.org/2007/12/an_open_letter_to_president_bu.php#004610


Porkbusters is proud to be a signatory to the open letter to President Bush below. If your organization or publication would like to be listed as supporting this effort, please email bear -at- truthlaidbear -dot- com.

--------------------------------------

Mr. President:

This past week, Congress passed an omnibus spending bill that will soon be presented for your signature. While it is consistent with the total budget targets your administration has set, the 3,417 pages of the bill and associated reports are bloated by more than 9,000 earmarks which were subjected to little or no review during the scant 24 hours between the publishing of the bill text and the House voting to pass it. When combined with the more than 2,000 earmarks in the Defense Appropriations Bill this Congress has churned out over 11,000 earmarks this year. The vast majority of these earmarks do not even appear in the legislative text, but rather are buried in the committee reports that accompany the bill, further removing them from proper review and scrutiny. While the total number of earmarks is down compared to record highs and there is increased transparency, there are still far too many to be effectively vetted.

The rushed way in which Congress passed the omnibus - one of the largest pieces of legislation ever considered - made a mockery of our legislative process, and Congress itself bears the responsibility and shame for that. But you have the power to send a message both to Congress and the American people that the waste and corrupting influence of earmarks will not be tolerated. A December 18 legal analysis by the Congressional Research Service concluded that "because the language of committee reports do not meet the procedural requirements of Article I of the Constitution -- specifically, bicameralism and presentment - they are not laws and, therefore, are not legally binding on executive agencies... Given both the implied legal and constitutional authority as well as the long-standing accepted process of Presidents, it appears that a President can, if he so chooses, issue an executive order with respect to earmarks contained solely in committee reports and not in any way incorporated into the legislative text."

On December 20, you stated that you were "instructing the budget director to review options for dealing with the wasteful spending in the omnibus bill." We applaud you for this leadership, and ask that you follow through by issuing an executive order formally directing all Federal agencies to ignore non-legislative earmarks tucked into committee reports and statements of managers. Such an action is within your Constitutional powers, and would strike a blow for fiscal responsibility now while setting a valuable precedent for the future.

Tell Congress and the American public that the era of earmarks is over, and that the Congressional "favor factory" which mints earmarks is closed. The American taxpayer will applaud such an action, as will the many honest legislators in Congress who are trying to fight the broken and corrupt appropriations machine. We hope that you embrace this opportunity, and thank you for your leadership on this issue.

Sincerely,

Alabama Policy Institute
American Conservative Union
American Values
Americans for Prosperity
Americans for Tax Reform
Calvert Institute for Policy Research
Citizens Against Government Waste
Club for Growth
Commonwealth Foundation
Eagle Forum
Evergreen Freedom Foundation
Family Research Council
Freedom Works
Illinois Policy Institute
Larry Kudlow, Kudlow & Company, LLC
The National Tax Limitation Committee
National Taxpayers Union
Porkbusters.org
Taxpayers for Common Sense

[5stringJeff]

http://porkbusters.org/2007/12/an_open_letter_to_president_bu.php#004610

Eggs Zachary. The executive branch should straight up ignore anything that doesn't carry the weight of law.

[actsnoblemartin]

check yours pms jeff.


Eggs Zachary. The executive branch should straight up ignore anything that doesn't carry the weight of law.

[red states rule]

Your thoughts.

and I thought Reid and Pelosi promised they would spend the taxpayers money with great care

With all this pork - why the hell should we have to pay more in taxes?

[Joe Steel]

I don't care what the breakdown is, it's still 11,900 earmarks being paid for with my tax dollars. It's still 11,900 earmarks that aren't authorized by the Constitution.

Nonsense.

See Article 1, Section 8.

Congress has a virtually unlimited power to tax and borrow to provide for the general welfare. That includes "earmarks."

[PostmodernProphet]

how do you equate earmarks and "general welfare"......you can't get any less "general" than earmarks.....

[manu1959]

Nonsense.

See Article 1, Section 8.

Congress has a virtually unlimited power to tax and borrow to provide for the general welfare. That includes "earmarks."

a ground hog day celebration is not general welfare.....

general welfare benifits the many not the few....

[Pale Rider]

Your thoughts.

Completely out of control. Whatever happened to the line item veto?

[red states rule]

Nonsense.

See Article 1, Section 8.

Congress has a virtually unlimited power to tax and borrow to provide for the general welfare. That includes "earmarks."

So that is why libs want to raise taxes - so they can have more pork in spending bills?

IS that what your call spending taxpayer moneycarefully?

$3 million to teach kids to play golf

$! million to the Tom Dashiell Center

Is this vital government funding

[5stringJeff]

Nonsense.

See Article 1, Section 8.

Congress has a virtually unlimited power to tax and borrow to provide for the general welfare. That includes "earmarks."

Except that these earmarks didn't pass through Congress as the Constitution states, and therefore do not carry the weight of law.

[82Marine89]

Nonsense.

See Article 1, Section 8.

Congress has a virtually unlimited power to tax and borrow to provide for the general welfare. That includes "earmarks."

Bullshit. 100 million dollars to fund their annual conventions? A bridge to nowhere? Expansion of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame? Heck, half the state of West Virginia is named after 'Sheets' Byrd. You explain to me how this is covered under general welfare. Maybe you should take the time to read Representative Davey Crockett's "Not Yours to Give" (http://www.house.gov/paul/nytg.htm).

[JohnDoe]

Your thoughts.



Pork Alert: The Pork in the Omnibus Goes Round and Round

Washington, D.C. - Citizens Against Government Waste today released an analysis of earmarks in the fiscal 2008 appropriations bills. There are 8,967 projects worth $7.5 billion in H.R. 2764 State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2008 (Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008), which, combined with the 2,076 projects worth $6.6 billion in the fiscal 2008 Defense Appropriations Act, brings the total to 11,043 projects worth $14.1 billion. The last year in which all of the appropriations bills were enacted was 2006, when CAGW found 9,963 projects worth $29 billion in the 2006 Congressional Pig Book.

In the 2008 bills, for the first time, the names of members of Congress were provided with the earmarks, which counts as progress in the battle to cut back and eventually eliminate pork-barrel spending. The number of earmarks was increased by 1,080, or 11 percent from 2006, and the cost was reduced by $14.9 billion, or 51 percent.

i do NOT agree with earmarks at all but to not give the democrats an A+ for reducing earmark spending by a 51% reductionin 2007 is disingenuous....and also, the number of projects is not what counts in my book but the wasted money spent on them by ''party'' is a better way of looking at them, which i am in the process of doing now, and quite enlightening too!

http://www.cagw.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=11166

jd

[red states rule]

i do NOT agree with earmarks at all but to not give the democrats an A+ for reducing earmark spending by a 51% reductionin 2007 is disingenuous....and also, the number of projects is not what counts in my book but the wasted money spent on them by ''party'' is a better way of looking at them, which i am in the process of doing now, and quite enlightening too!

http://www.cagw.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=11166

jd

Yet you and your party wants to jack up our taxes so Dems will have more of our money to piss through

I fail to understand your liberal logic JD

[actsnoblemartin]

if republicans fight to cut spending, they will return to power, if they dont, they will not.


Yet you and your party wants to jack up our taxes so Dems will have more of our money to piss through

I fail to understand your liberal logic JD

[red states rule]

if republicans fight to cut spending, they will return to power, if they dont, they will not.

that is their ticket to regaining power

[JohnDoe]

Yet you and your party wants to jack up our taxes so Dems will have more of our money to piss through

I fail to understand your liberal logic JD

We are spending $10 BILLION a month on Iraq/Afghanistan.

And

We are spending $$33.8 BILLION a month on the interest payment on the National debt which Republicans when in power grew, grew and grew because they over spent, over spent and over spent while they were in complete control of the House, the Senate, and the White House.

Liberals are Saints compared to the Republicans when it comes to OVERSPENDING the budget.

Again, this does not mean that I think Democrats could not do better than the 51% reduction in pork barrel spending that they did their first year back in power, just that Republicans can NOT in anyway be trusted financially....they spend like drunken sailors in a whore house....to deny this is wrong.

jd

[red states rule]

We are spending $10 BILLION a month on Iraq/Afghanistan.

And

We are spending $$33.8 BILLION a month on the interest payment on the National debt which Republicans when in power grew, grew and grew because they over spent, over spent and over spent while they were in complete control of the House, the Senate, and the White House.

Liberals are Saints compared to the Republicans when it comes to OVERSPENDING the budget.

Again, this does not mean that I think Democrats could not do better than the 51% reduction in pork barrel spending that they did their first year back in power, just that Republicans can NOT in anyway be trusted financially....they spend like drunken sailors in a whore house....to deny this is wrong.

jd

Lbs are outdspending Republicans JD - no matter how much to try to deny it wil not change that fact

And your party wants to jack up our (and your) taxes so they can increase the spending levels. The pork is flowing despite Dems promise to curb the pork. Much like all the other promises they forgot about when they were sworn into office

[JohnDoe]

Lbs are outdspending Republicans JD - no matter how much to try to deny it wil not change that fact

And your party wants to jack up our (and your) taxes so they can increase the spending levels. The pork is flowing despite Dems promise to curb the pork. Much like all the other promises they forgot about when they were sworn into office

Libs are NOT outspending the Republicans......NO ONE CAN OUTSPEND what the repubs spent while in control.....

Even in Pork, the Dems had a 51% reduction in spending compared to the Republicans, period!

jd

[red states rule]

Libs are NOT outspending the Republicans......NO ONE CAN OUTSPEND what the repubs spent while in control.....

Even in Pork, the Dems had a 51% reduction in spending compared to the Republicans, period!

jd

JD - only 3 of the 11 spending bills have been passed and the amount in pork was huge

Lets see what the final number is

BTW, how do you like your crow? Rare, medium, or well done?

[actsnoblemartin]

:laugh2:


JD - only 3 of the 11 spending bills have been passed and the amount in pork was huge

Lets see what the final number is

BTW, how do you like your crow? Rare, medium, or well done?

[red states rule]

:laugh2:

So far all I hear is crickets chirping Acts

[actsnoblemartin]

crickets. tigers dont chirp... we roar!


So far all I hear is crickets chirping Acts

[red states rule]

crickets. tigers dont chirp... we roar!

True. But JD has not replied to the post - that is where the crickets are chirping

[PostmodernProphet]

NO ONE CAN OUTSPEND what the repubs spent while in control.

actually, that's not true.....I recall the same comments repeated by the left every time the Republicans submitted one of their horrendous spending bills.....those comments were along the lines of "shortchanged"....."need to exand spending"....."it's actually a cut"......"not enough".........

Republicans spent way too much between 2001 and 2006, but there is no denying that if we had had a Democratic congress and president, we would have spent more......

[red states rule]

actually, that's not true.....I recall the same comments repeated by the left every time the Republicans submitted one of their horrendous spending bills.....those comments were along the lines of "shortchanged"....."need to exand spending"....."it's actually a cut"......"not enough".........

Republicans spent way too much between 2001 and 2006, but there is no denying that if we had had a Democratic congress and president, we would have spent more......

Hillary was caught saying how she has a million ideas, but the country can't afford them all

That is all you need to know about her and the Dems

[JohnDoe]

actually, that's not true.....I recall the same comments repeated by the left every time the Republicans submitted one of their horrendous spending bills.....those comments were along the lines of "shortchanged"....."need to exand spending"....."it's actually a cut"......"not enough".........

Republicans spent way too much between 2001 and 2006, but there is no denying that if we had had a Democratic congress and president, we would have spent more......PMP, show some proof, some real numbers that show the Dems outspending the Republicans, not just hollow comments and then, I will believe the hype you are touting.... you talk a good game....those on the right, but they DID NOT in any way, shape or form, put their money where their mouth is....

btw, iraq is costing us 10 BILLION a month....that is $10,000,000,000 a month! For 5 straight years now.....and the republicans increased domestic spending over 36% during the 6 years they were in power....they grew our gvt at a pace that had been unseen for decades.

So pleaseeeeeeee, don't try to pass that crap about dems spending more....it is simply NOT TRUE.... A wish maybe, but not true....and the numbers show that it is NOT true....

And I am sorry if I sound nasty in saying this, but it gets a little tiring to hear the hype from the right about this and that Dems would have spent more and that crap, because it is what I have said, just plain crap.

jd

[PostmodernProphet]

"PMP, show some proof"

Democrats criticize cuts in budget proposal....

2007 http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-02-06-budget-reaction_x.htm

2006
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58762-2004May26.html

2005
http://www.shopmpm.com/item.asp?cID=28&PID=83

2002
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/congress/jan-june02/daschle_2-11.html

1994
http://debsquirkyweb.blogspot.com/2006/06/lets-have-more-budget-cuts-for-vital.html

1991
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE5DC1E31F933A05752C0A9669582 60&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

how far back you want to go?...look, Dems like to spend money....it's what they DO.......you can't get around that, no matter how hard you try....nobody, but nobody is going to believe Dems are the party of fiscal restraint.....

[red states rule]

PMP, show some proof, some real numbers that show the Dems outspending the Republicans, not just hollow comments and then, I will believe the hype you are touting.... you talk a good game....those on the right, but they DID NOT in any way, shape or form, put their money where their mouth is....

btw, iraq is costing us 10 BILLION a month....that is $10,000,000,000 a month! For 5 straight years now.....and the republicans increased domestic spending over 36% during the 6 years they were in power....they grew our gvt at a pace that had been unseen for decades.

So pleaseeeeeeee, don't try to pass that crap about dems spending more....it is simply NOT TRUE.... A wish maybe, but not true....and the numbers show that it is NOT true....

And I am sorry if I sound nasty in saying this, but it gets a little tiring to hear the hype from the right about this and that Dems would have spent more and that crap, because it is what I have said, just plain crap.

jd

Believe it JD -Dems are iutspending Republicans. They want a huge a tax increase on top of that

Not only are Dems pouring on the pork, they want to create new and expand existing programs

You whine about the money spent in Iraq - but it pails in comparsion to the entire Federal budget. Right now the budget is close to $3 trillion per year.

Dems say we are spending enough - and they are obsessed with spending more

[red states rule]

Libs are NOT outspending the Republicans......NO ONE CAN OUTSPEND what the repubs spent while in control.....

Even in Pork, the Dems had a 51% reduction in spending compared to the Republicans, period!

jd

Once again JD - your beloved Dems proved you wrong. Here is ONE bill Dems passed, and as Pres Bush signed it


"I am disappointed in the way the Congress compiled this legislation, including abandoning the goal I set early this year to reduce the number and cost of earmarks by half," he said. "Instead, the Congress dropped into the bill nearly 9,800 earmarks that total more than $10 billion. These projects are not funded through a merit-based process and provide a vehicle for wasteful government spending."

"There is still more to be done to rein in government spending," he said. "In February, I will submit my budget proposal for fiscal year 2009, which will once again restrain spending, keep taxes low, and continue us on a path towards a balanced budget. I look forward to working with the Congress in the coming year to ensure taxpayer dollars are spent wisely."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071227/NATION/403431131/1001


The amount of pork goes up as Dems spend our money on "vital" government programs. Here are a couple of examples

$400 million for rural schools, $283 million for the Milk Income Loss Contract program, $74 million for peanut storage costs, and $25 million for spinach growers."

Yes JD, the US would never live to see another day without this spending

[JohnDoe]

"PMP, show some proof"

Democrats criticize cuts in budget proposal....

2007 http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-02-06-budget-reaction_x.htm

2006
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58762-2004May26.html

2005
http://www.shopmpm.com/item.asp?cID=28&PID=83

2002
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/congress/jan-june02/daschle_2-11.html

1994
http://debsquirkyweb.blogspot.com/2006/06/lets-have-more-budget-cuts-for-vital.html

1991
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE5DC1E31F933A05752C0A9669582 60&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

how far back you want to go?...look, Dems like to spend money....it's what they DO.......you can't get around that, no matter how hard you try....nobody, but nobody is going to believe Dems are the party of fiscal restraint.....

Good Morning PMP,

SURELY you have got to be kidding? Did you even read your links that you supplied?

There is NOTHING in any of them that shows that Democrats outspend the Republicans becasue NO ONE could outspend the Republicans that were in control of all, NO ONE.

There is NO PROOF that Democrats spend more of your money than Republicans, NONE what so ever???????

So, either you were sleepy when you posted this or you thought some interviews or opinions showed this or whatever???? But what it did show is that you could not post ONE link to show that Republicans are not the BIGGER spenders of our money and the BIG GOVERNMENT PARTY, which they are....and that is a FACT, not fiction.

I really don't understand or see any point that you could or were trying to prove in your post....show me the numbers, factual numbers that support this dream that you would like to believe and i might be able to believe these facts, but the facts aren't there to find other than in your mind...what you want to believe....



jd

[red states rule]

Good Morning PMP,

SURELY you have got to be kidding? Did you even read your links that you supplied?

There is NOTHING in any of them that shows that Democrats outspend the Republicans becasue NO ONE could outspend the Republicans that were in control of all, NO ONE.

There is NO PROOF that Democrats spend more of your money than Republicans, NONE what so ever???????

So, either you were sleepy when you posted this or you thought some interviews or opinions showed this or whatever???? But what it did show is that you could not post ONE link to show that Republicans are not the BIGGER spenders of our money and the BIG GOVERNMENT PARTY, which they are....and that is a FACT, not fiction.

I really don't understand or see any point that you could or were trying to prove in your post....show me the numbers, factual numbers that support this dream that you would like to believe and i might be able to believe these facts, but the facts aren't there to find other than in your mind...what you want to believe....



jd


Would ir be to much trouble for you JD to look at the Federal budget, the things Dems want to do, and listen to all the handouts Sems want to pass around to their gullible masses?

I have posted many links to how the Dems are spending our money.

[JohnDoe]

Once again JD - your beloved Dems proved you wrong. Here is ONE bill Dems passed, and as Pres Bush signed it


"I am disappointed in the way the Congress compiled this legislation, including abandoning the goal I set early this year to reduce the number and cost of earmarks by half," he said. "Instead, the Congress dropped into the bill nearly 9,800 earmarks that total more than $10 billion. These projects are not funded through a merit-based process and provide a vehicle for wasteful government spending."

"There is still more to be done to rein in government spending," he said. "In February, I will submit my budget proposal for fiscal year 2009, which will once again restrain spending, keep taxes low, and continue us on a path towards a balanced budget. I look forward to working with the Congress in the coming year to ensure taxpayer dollars are spent wisely."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071227/NATION/403431131/1001


The amount of pork goes up as Dems spend our money on "vital" government programs. Here are a couple of examples

$400 million for rural schools, $283 million for the Milk Income Loss Contract program, $74 million for peanut storage costs, and $25 million for spinach growers."

Yes JD, the US would never live to see another day without this spending

good morning rsr,

Earmarks were cut by the Democrats their first year in control. Yes, they reduced the dollars spent on earmarks over the previous year when republicans were in control.


INTRODUCTION

According to the Chinese calendar, 2007 is the Year of the Pig. Fortunately for American taxpayers, it will be a smaller pig than usual. The 2007 Congressional Pig Book has not been this little since 1999, as only two of the 11 appropriations bills were enacted by Congress and the remaining nine were subject to a moratorium on earmarks. There are no indoor rainforests, National Peanut Festivals, mariachi music grants, or teapot museums to be found.

This year’s Pig Book breaks a run of seven consecutive years of record dollar amounts of pork, culminating in $29 billion in the 2006 Congressional Pig Book. This lesser barrel of pork can be attributed to the efforts of Senators Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), who prevented the enactment of nine appropriations bills in December, 2006, and the subsequent moratorium on earmarks announced and enforced by the House and Senate Appropriations Committee Chairmen David Obey (D-Wis.) and Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) in H. J. Res. 20, the bill that funds the government for the remainder of fiscal 2007.

http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_pigbook2007

[red states rule]

Again JD, only 3 pending bills ahve been passed. We still have 8 more to go, plus any other bills Congres will pass

Do you really think Dems will keep their promise not to add pork? Hell, they have not kept any promises they made to you, and the rest of the voters when you voted for them in 06

[JohnDoe]

Would ir be to much trouble for you JD to look at the Federal budget, the things Dems want to do, and listen to all the handouts Sems want to pass around to their gullible masses?

I have posted many links to how the Dems are spending our money.

RSR, you say tomatoe and I say tomahtoe....

What they choose to spend money on varies by party.... your side would rather waste billions upon billions of lost/ stolen/unaccounted for money for the people in Iraq on no bid contract companies and others that have litterally robbed us blind and had no oversight, my side would rather take that money and spend it on the tax payer's and people of America....

The Bottom line is how much of our money is spent when the year is over and there is no doubt that the Republicans grew our budget including domestic spending by amounts that are unheard of in our history when they were in control with the President in power.

jd

[Sir Evil]

RSR, you say tomatoe and I say tomahtoe....



And you say dove, I say pigeon.... really, is there any difference when you think about it? :D

[JohnDoe]

Again JD, only 3 pending bills ahve been passed. We still have 8 more to go, plus any other bills Congres will pass

Do you really think Dems will keep their promise not to add pork? Hell, they have not kept any promises they made to you, and the rest of the voters when you voted for them in 06

But rsr, as i have shown you several times and i also underlined in bold in my post above, there is a MORATORIUM ON EARMARKS ON ALL of the remaining bills....legislation or rules in place that won't allow any earmarks to be made.

Now, I suppose they could try to change the law or rule, and break it when the time comes, but it does not appear that they can and the moratorium on earmarks seems pretty solid to me, on the remaining bills.

Even President Bush praised the Dems on the cutting of pork that they were able to do, while criticising them out of the other side of his mouth, on what did make it through....

jd

[red states rule]

But rsr, as i have shown you several times and i also underlined in bold in my post above, there is a MORATORIUM ON EARMARKS ON ALL of the remaining bills....legislation or rules in place that won't allow any earmarks to be made.

Now, I suppose they could try to change the law or rule, and break it when the time comes, but it does not appear that they can and the moratorium on earmarks seems pretty solid to me, on the remaining bills.

Even President Bush praised the Dems on the cutting of pork that they were able to do, while criticising them out of the other side of his mouth, on what did make it through....

jd

Given the long list of promises the Dems have broken - they will ignore this one as well

Or they will tack on the pork in other bills. Dems will set a new spending record JD - you can count on it