House Democrats, clearly feeling the heat from dissatisfied and very angry voters, tried to put a populist fig leaf on the naked earmarking that has plagued the budget process for over a decade. Their ploy, introduced yesterday, would end all earmarks given to for profit companies.
WASHINGTON -- House Democratic leaders on Wednesday banned budget earmarks to private industry, ending a practice that has steered billions of dollars in no-bid contracts to companies and set off corruption scandals.The ban is the most forceful step yet in a three-year effort in Congress to curb abuses in the use of earmarks, which allow individual lawmakers to award financing for pet projects to groups and businesses, many of them campaign donors.
However, Republicans immediately raised the stakes and proposed a ban on all earmarks:
A day after House Democrats announced a ban on earmarks for private companies, their Republican counterparts hope to dramatically up the ante with a unilateral prohibition on all targeted spending projects.If approved, the Republican policy would restrict GOP lawmakers from sponsoring any earmarks at all -- broadening the Democratic ban to cover earmarks for nonprofit entities and tax and tariff breaks approved through the Ways and Means Committee.
"When Republicans take back the House, we will rein in out-of-control federal spending and bring fundamental change to the process by which Congress spends American taxpayers' money," according to a statement from Republican leaders.
The minority is eager to protect what it views as a potent political advantage over Democrats on spending. And many -- including an apparently united GOP leadership -- are rallying behind the effort to one-up the Democrats on earmarks.
Life after Murtha is taking an interesting turn in the House. And for anyone that questioned the impact of the Tea Party movement these proposals should put all doubts to rest. Washington is running scared on the spending issue and clearly wants to stay ahead of the pitchforks.
Permalink | Linking Blogs | Sphere: Related Content | Digg this! | FARK It!
Filed under:
Porkbusters
Comments (13)
This is all well and good u... (Below threshold)1. Posted by JPO | March 11, 2010 11:06 AM | Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
This is all well and good until they (the House Representatives--Democrat and Republican) attempt to get around this by calling it something other than "earmark." And it's only a ban on budget earmarks, which means they'll simply write them into other bills instead. (Can anyone say "stimulus"?)
1. Posted by JPO | March 11, 2010 11:06 AM |
Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
Posted on March 11, 2010 11:06
2. Posted by davidt | March 11, 2010 11:27 AM | Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
"Washington is running scared on the spending issue and clearly wants to stay ahead of the pitchforks."
Pitchforks have reach.
2. Posted by davidt | March 11, 2010 11:27 AM |
Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
Posted on March 11, 2010 11:27
3. Posted by GarandFan | March 11, 2010 11:56 AM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
"Life after Murtha is taking an interesting turn in the House."
I'd imagine that Porky Murtha is spinning in his grave.
3. Posted by GarandFan | March 11, 2010 11:56 AM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on March 11, 2010 11:56
4. Posted by Lurking Observer | March 11, 2010 12:28 PM | Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
The idea that you'd ban earmarks from private business, but nothing else, is another example of wolves in sheep's clothing.
So, universities and non-profit organizations would still be able to get earmarks. What does that suggest about something like, say, the Annenberg Challenge?
4. Posted by Lurking Observer | March 11, 2010 12:28 PM |
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Posted on March 11, 2010 12:28
5. Posted by Hank | March 11, 2010 12:35 PM | Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Lurking Observer makes a good point.
I imagine govt. unions are thrilled by this, let alone acorn.
5. Posted by Hank | March 11, 2010 12:35 PM |
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Posted on March 11, 2010 12:35
6. Posted by jim m | March 11, 2010 1:55 PM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Lurking observer is right. I thought of the same thing when I read it. Non-profit foundations, unions, universities, all with radical left ideologies and agendas are all exempted from this.
In fact this only creates the opportunity for not-for-profit foundations to be forms for the sole purpose of funneling money to businesses that the dems want to give kickbacks to.
There's nothing about corruption that the dems wouldn't like to make even more corrupt.
Think of Murtha, who turned down an AbScam bribe because it wasn't big enough. This would have enabled him to make direct personal profit from his earmarks. What's not to like?
6. Posted by jim m | March 11, 2010 1:55 PM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on March 11, 2010 13:55
7. Posted by Cheney W. Halliburton | March 11, 2010 2:41 PM | Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
Steve Green is a delusional douchebag incapable of understanding English.
7. Posted by Cheney W. Halliburton | March 11, 2010 2:41 PM |
Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
Posted on March 11, 2010 14:41
8. Posted by GarandFan | March 11, 2010 2:54 PM | Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
Stevie always makes intellectual and thought provoking statements. Hahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!
Wizbang keeps him around for 'the entertainment factor'.
8. Posted by GarandFan | March 11, 2010 2:54 PM |
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
Posted on March 11, 2010 14:54
9. Posted by Lurking Observer | March 11, 2010 3:22 PM | Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
Steven Green:
Far from opposing the end of corporate earmarks, it seems to me that this doesn't go far enough.
How about eliminating all earmarks?
It's like lobbyists in this administration. The problem isn't that they've cut back on lobbyists being employed in the administration, it's that they have any at all.
Why go for half-measures?
When you go for half-measures, and ones that only benefit your own side of the ledger, then it appears that you're not interested in reform, so much as stacking the deck in your own favor.
9. Posted by Lurking Observer | March 11, 2010 3:22 PM |
Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
Posted on March 11, 2010 15:22
10. Posted by 914 | March 11, 2010 3:50 PM | Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
Speaking of earmarks.. Whos keepin track of dumbos flappers?
10. Posted by 914 | March 11, 2010 3:50 PM |
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
Posted on March 11, 2010 15:50
11. Posted by Cheney W. Halliburton | March 11, 2010 4:39 PM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
11. Posted by Cheney W. Halliburton | March 11, 2010 4:39 PM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on March 11, 2010 16:39
12. Posted by Gmac | March 11, 2010 8:35 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
"Today the House Republicans promised a one-year pause in earmarks, not a permanent ban."
http://tiny.cc/3oQAP
In an election year when there is a deep resession the Democrats are spending like there's no tomorrow. This is after having taken over the House, Senate and Presidency on the promise to reform spending. It seems that Republicans have come to their senses and returned to fiscal conservatism in time to offer a choice to the electorate.
12. Posted by Gmac | March 11, 2010 8:35 PM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on March 11, 2010 20:35
13. Posted by olsoljer | March 12, 2010 7:58 AM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
ARE YOU KIDDING ME? GET RID OF EARMARKS???
If you do something like that, where is Michelle going to get her inflated university salary for doing nothing? Some one will have to support jugears when he is kicked out of office (if he is not in prison).
13. Posted by olsoljer | March 12, 2010 7:58 AM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on March 12, 2010 07:58