Comments on: A Quick Idea About Earmarks

By: Grade the Earmarks : Delaware Liberal

Grade the Earmarks : Delaware Liberal — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 16:01:14 +0000

[...] up on Scott P’s interesting thinking on earmarks (yes I know), here is an interesting approach to the earmark question — Congressman Tim Walz [...]

By: Scott P

Scott P — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 21:03:12 +0000

I can’t disagree with that. I never thought this idea would completely stop the collusion or backroom dealing — nor, honestly, would I want it to. Whether we like it or not, Washington and legislating pretty much runs on “You do this for me, and I’ll do that for you.” That’s why we’ve got problems now that the GOP pulled out of the game altogether. Also bear in mind that most of that took place before 2007, when the House mandated public disclosure for all earmarks. Now, everything is out in the open. all my idea would do is make someone, maybe, have to justify the spending with an argument other than, “Hey, I brought us money, didn’t I?”

By: Phuny

Phuny — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 20:58:39 +0000

Earmarks? there are no Earmarks! Obama said he would not sign a budget with earmarks, so there are no earmarks.

you are all just part of the right wing smear machine trying to tear down our Dear Leader.

By: cassandra m

cassandra m — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 20:31:00 +0000

The thing is, there is already collusion among these guys on this earmark business. And that collusion is located in how they fundraise. There’s an Ethics investigation into 4 Dems and 2 repubs on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee looking into the earmarks for PMA (the Murtha investigation). The Ethics Committee cleared them all and said this:

“Simply because a member sponsors an earmark for an entity that also happens to be a campaign contributor does not, on these two facts alone, support a claim that a member’s actions are being influenced by campaign contributions,” the committee said in its 305-page report.

The committee said PMA used ” ’strong-arm’ tactics” against lawmakers who opposed earmarks, including threatening to encourage companies to move out of their districts.

In theory it is possible for a lawmaker to get contributions from companies to not be influenced by that when they want something from you, it seems largely improbable. And here they are providing the stamp of approval to some of the worst of it.

So I think that getting a co-sponsor — different party or no — basically becomes Logrolling In Our Time™ (anyone a fan of the old SPY magazines?), Congressional Version.

By: nemski

nemski — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 20:11:50 +0000

LOL your right about that.

By: Scott P

Scott P — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 20:06:44 +0000

Actually, I did think about that. And at almost any other time in history it’s probably be a decent idea. Right now, though, I fear the only thing it would lead to is Republicans get earmarks and Democrats don’t. I have a feeling that if Anthony Weiner tried to get funding for the Queens office of The Society for the Prevention of Terrorists Molesting Puppies, he couldn’t get a Republican to sign on.

By: nemski

nemski — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 19:40:03 +0000

You know what, make the co-sponsor from another party.