red states rule
07-28-2007, 03:39 AM
thought Dems were going to cut spending and pork
32,684
That's the number of "funding requests" -- i.e., earmarks -- from House lawmakers this year.
BEFORE LAST week's recess, Republicans and Democrats went at each other over earmarks. The flash point was a plan by House Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey (D-Wis.) not to put earmarks in individual spending bills this year when they were considered on the House floor. Under the Obey plan, now abandoned, the earmarks would have been added only after the measure was in conference. This was a problem, as Republicans legitimately pointed out, because conference reports aren't subject to amendment, just an up-or-down vote. Republicans accused Democrats of backtracking on their promise to usher in a new era of transparency and accountability. The outrage was a bit hard to take from a crowd that presided over an explosion of earmarks and excelled in last-minute provisions airdropped into conference reports. But the Democrats were right to back down: Two spending bills passed without earmarks, but the remaining ones will have the specific projects included.
This is a better result, but the most shocking aspect of the brouhaha was not Mr. Obey's plan. Rather, it was the number of funding requests deluging the committee: 32,684, or an average of 75 requests per member. Some of these center on broader concerns -- funding for global AIDS programs, say -- but most involve matters less lofty. Some spending bills, such as military construction, or energy and water, lend themselves to earmarking because they involve individual projects. Why should only the executive branch get to determine which should be pursued? But in recent years the practice has mushroomed. This year, members have tried to place earmarks where none had occurred -- for example, at the National Institutes of Health. Something needs to be done to get this under control. As Mr. Obey put it, "Members should be more than ATM machines for their district. They should be policy setters for the country."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/07/AR2007070700982.html
32,684
That's the number of "funding requests" -- i.e., earmarks -- from House lawmakers this year.
BEFORE LAST week's recess, Republicans and Democrats went at each other over earmarks. The flash point was a plan by House Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey (D-Wis.) not to put earmarks in individual spending bills this year when they were considered on the House floor. Under the Obey plan, now abandoned, the earmarks would have been added only after the measure was in conference. This was a problem, as Republicans legitimately pointed out, because conference reports aren't subject to amendment, just an up-or-down vote. Republicans accused Democrats of backtracking on their promise to usher in a new era of transparency and accountability. The outrage was a bit hard to take from a crowd that presided over an explosion of earmarks and excelled in last-minute provisions airdropped into conference reports. But the Democrats were right to back down: Two spending bills passed without earmarks, but the remaining ones will have the specific projects included.
This is a better result, but the most shocking aspect of the brouhaha was not Mr. Obey's plan. Rather, it was the number of funding requests deluging the committee: 32,684, or an average of 75 requests per member. Some of these center on broader concerns -- funding for global AIDS programs, say -- but most involve matters less lofty. Some spending bills, such as military construction, or energy and water, lend themselves to earmarking because they involve individual projects. Why should only the executive branch get to determine which should be pursued? But in recent years the practice has mushroomed. This year, members have tried to place earmarks where none had occurred -- for example, at the National Institutes of Health. Something needs to be done to get this under control. As Mr. Obey put it, "Members should be more than ATM machines for their district. They should be policy setters for the country."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/07/AR2007070700982.html