PDA

View Full Version : Yet another reason to vote 3rd party



Mr_Cheeze
July 8th, 2006, 12:56 PM
House GOP leaders decry 'pork,' but back it
Helped block curbs on spending bills
By Rick Klein, Boston Globe Staff | July 8, 2006

WASHINGTON -- Top leaders of the House of Representatives, who last month decried pork-barrel spending while voting to give the president a line-item veto, have helped block 40 attempts this year to remove individual special-interest ``earmark" projects from spending bills, according to a Globe review of voting records.

The three top House leaders -- Speaker J. Dennis Hastert , majority leader John A. Boehner , and majority whip Roy Blunt , all Republicans -- have not cast a single vote against any of the projects that have been challenged by fiscal conservatives on the House floor. One of the projects -- $2.5 million for the Illinois Technology Transition Center -- was sought by Hastert himself and was affirmed quickly on a voice vote.

Among the other earmarks that Hastert, Boehner, and Blunt have supported were $500,000 to renovate a municipal swimming pool in Banning, Calif.; $250,000 for a performing arts center in Plattsburgh, N.Y.; $1 million for a locomotive demonstration in Pennsylvania; $1 million for the Southern and Eastern Kentucky Tourism Development Association; $180,000 for tomato production in Ohio; and $1.4 million in two separate earmarks for Mystic Aquarium in Connecticut.

All of the projects were retained in lopsided votes, with only a core group of about 50 fiscal conservatives voting consistently to strike the spending. But House leaders continue to insist they're being tough on earmarks.

Representative Jeff Flake , an Arizona Republican who has led the effort to remove earmarks from spending bills, said the leaders can't credibly claim to be against wasteful spending as long as they support the earmarks.

``It's tough to take seriously that kind of talk when we see these votes," Flake said. ``I'm amazed that people are willing to go on record supporting some of these earmarks. It just shows how addicted we are to this sort of spending."

Flake said he will bring the issue to a head later this month, when a pork-laden bill covering labor, healthcare, and human-services programs comes to the House floor. He has informed House leaders that he will force a vote on each of the more than 1,000 earmarks in that bill unless the sponsors are publicly identified -- a move that would consume days on the House floor and grind other legislative business to a halt.

``I'm guaranteeing a challenge on every earmark that doesn't have a name," Flake said. ``We have to change this system. This is a black eye for all of us."

The reluctance of House leaders to vote against earmarks highlights the difficulty of reforming the system by which members of Congress win projects for their districts, said Representative John B. Shadegg , an Arizona Republican who has joined in Flake's attempts to remove earmarks.

``It does raise the question, are [House leaders] capable of reform?" said Shadegg, whose failed campaign for majority leader earlier this year focused heavily on earmark reform.

Last month, the House passed a bill giving President Bush the ability to veto specific budget items and thereby remove individual pork-barrel projects -- in essence, the same thing that Flake has been trying to do on the House floor.

``It will help make Congress more accountable for the spending that we propose and can clearly help eliminate some wasteful and worthless pork," said Boehner, an Ohio Republican . But the move was largely symbolic: The Senate, as Boehner and other House leaders were aware, is unlikely to approve the line-item veto.

The House also passed a bill that would require public identification of members who request earmarks and make it easier for lawmakers to challenge projects. But the bill is stalled in a House-Senate conference committee, raising questions among watchdog groups about how sincere the reform effort ever was.

``They're trying to spin their way out of the earmark problem," said Keith Ashdown , vice president for policy at Taxpayers for Common Sense. ``It's insulting, because they just believe this is their money to spend."

Ron Bonjean , a Hastert spokesman, said House leaders are allowing the earmarks Flake challenges to survive or be defeated on their own merits.

Boehner, who proudly notes that he has never personally requested or received an earmarked project, said he voted for other members' 40 earmarks out of respect for his colleagues. He added that, as majority leader, he feels a special obligation to support the decisions of the House Appropriations Committee, the panel that determines which earmarks to include in spending bills.

``What some people think are pork-barrel projects, others think are very worthy projects in their districts," said Boehner. ``As the majority leader, my job is to be supportive of our committee chairmen [and] subcommittee chairmen and the work they do. That basically helps drive my vote on most of those amendments."

Blunt's spokeswoman, Burson Taylor , said the Missouri Republican believes the appropriations committee does a good job determining where money should be directed, and believes that members should be able to set aside money for projects.

``He supports members' prerogative to slate federal dollars for specific programs in their districts," Taylor said.

A spokesman for the appropriations committee, John Scofield , said the committee asked members to begin limiting the number of special requests they make, resulting in a 37 percent drop in the number of earmarks requested this year. Total earmarks represent barely 1 percent of all federal spending on discretionary programs, and committee members are careful to determine that each serves an important purpose, Scofield said.

Still, most members of Congress from both parties love earmarks because they allow them to brag about federal funding they've won for their districts. Representative Michael E. Capuano, a Somerville Democrat, said he thinks there are too few earmarks in the budget.

``Who is in a better position to know what's good for my district than me? I'm elected to do that," he said. ``I don't have chicken-farm museums in my district, but if I did, I'd defend them."

Capuano said he voted to retain all of the projects targeted by Flake because he'd like to see the projects he seeks accorded similar deference by his colleagues.

``We are equally qualified to know what we need in our districts," he said. ``I have not seen one yet that really makes me puke."

Fiscal conservatives say they haven't been successful in removing any earmarks because many House members are afraid of the enormous power of the appropriations committee, which determines who gets what in the budget.

``There are a lot of members who are afraid to buck the appropriations committee, because they feel they'll lose something -- either an earmark of their own or something else" that they want to pass , said Representative Charles Bass, a New Hampshire Republican.

In the meantime, Flake is treating his colleagues to some theatrical touches -- and no small amount of heartburn. The always-smiling congressman takes to the House floor to question about 10 earmarks in each spending bill, forcing the projects' sponsors in most cases to own up to them and defend them on C-SPAN.

``This project will be a big boost to the marketability of our manufacturing sector and help with new business activity for the region, which will lead to job retention and -- hopefully -- job creation," Representative Thomas Reynolds of New York, the head of Republicans' House campaign committee, said last week . He was defending a $250,000 earmark for the Tooling and Machining Association in Rochester, N.Y.

A few minutes later, Flake was on the floor again, this time targeting a $300,000 earmark for the Bronx Council on the Arts. He told his colleagues about an upcoming multimedia exhibition supported by the council known as ``Pay to Play," which was inspired by recent congressional scandals.

Flake read from the description of the project on the group's website: ``Please note that special consideration will be given to work that addresses corruption, greed, scandal, cover-ups, failures of democracy, the transparent veneer of public interest that masks rampant self-interest, and other such things."

``How would you define irony?" Flake said. ``We are funding artistic parodies of congressional earmarking with earmarks."

Representative Jose Serrano, a New York Democrat , issued a spirited defense touting the council's record of helping small businesses create jobs in poor neighborhoods -- and struck back at the Arizonan.

``I do not know what you are angry about; the Diamondbacks beat the Yankees in the World Series," Serrano said. ``But the fact of life is that the more you get up on these [earmarks], sir, the more I realize that you do not know what you are talking about."

The earmark survived, 343-74.

Mr_Cheeze
July 8th, 2006, 01:00 PM
Lest anyone believe this is strictly a Republican problem... keep dreaming. This is as much of a problem with Democrats. At least with them, there was never any claim to be fiscally conservative. These neo-cons in the GOP are utter hypocrites for ever claiming to vie for smaller government.

Slider
July 8th, 2006, 02:49 PM
I don't know how you're reasoning that one. Bush and the Republican-run Senate very quickly turned a large surplus into a record deficit. Seems hard to peg that on the Democrats.

Slider

Mr_Cheeze
July 8th, 2006, 03:10 PM
I'm not pegging anything on the Democrats. What I said was that they aren't innocent in any proportion when it comes to pork and eramark legislation. I simply brought it up to head off any attempt by certain... ahem... posters, who will gleefully pan the GOP for this latest of such political ballwashing while forgetting or glossing over the fact that Democrats have done it and will do it again. Besides, you don't honestly believe that the Democrats in the present House are in no way involved in adding their own fliers and earmarks? Maybe you missed the Senator Serrano comment towards the end of the article.

Bottom line, they ALL do this crap... and it is a heaping, smelly pile to be sure.

catbbq
July 9th, 2006, 07:47 AM
For the sake of argument, what makes you think a third party wouldn't do this as well?

Mr_Cheeze
July 9th, 2006, 12:31 PM
Of course I don't know that they wouldn't. What I do know is that our current state of government and politics if rife with this kind of practice. Some might argue that this is the sort of grease that keeps the wheels spinning. I say that's a lot of bull.

I still have enough faith in humanity to know that there are good, 3rd party people with integrity who have no shot at government because they are shut out by these entrenched parties that allow no room for what they consider to be interlopers. One of the very few things that you can get both Democrats and Republicans to agree on is that there can only be a 2 party system. And why wouldn't they feel that way. It's a symbiotic relationship. But it's allowed for an ever greater disparity between the haves and the have nots, and I'm not just talking about wealth. The Democratic party is no more for the "little guy" than the Republicans are for smaller government. Most of what we have been led to believe about those for whom we vote is an illusion. George W. Bush is probably the greatest example of this phenomenon to have ever held the Oval Office.

jakazz
July 9th, 2006, 06:31 PM
well on the deficit issue, when u spend what- 80 bil. on iraq, another 80 bil. on homeland security, then throw in star wars, the tsunami relief, and katrina, its just keeps digging in my pockets, I allready work a day and a half for the gov. then get hit with outrageous property taxes, and now 3.00 a gallon gas. If this isnt a wake up call I dont know what is.

The original reason for income tax was to tax the rich over a certain income level, but that changed, and with romney and his no tax hike, but I'm going to double every permit, license, excise, toll, and everything else I can charge u for crap is BS.


aarrggghhhhh.....................sorry about the rant just got another prop. tax bill, man they're scr**ing me.....

of course my friend in ashland is paying over 16,000.00 in res. prop. tax per year.
thats no bull.....

Mr_Cheeze
July 10th, 2006, 09:12 AM
The original reason for income tax was to tax the rich over a certain income level, but that changed, and with romney and his no tax hike, but I'm going to double every permit, license, excise, toll, and everything else I can charge u for crap is BS.




The original reason for income tax was to gain funding during the Civil War. Real socialist legislation making for what was considered to be greater equity in taxation didn't really come until the great depression, when the rich were taxed at exhorbitant rates. It was wrong then, and it's wrong now. But that's another argument for another day.