Thinking Right

By jbmlaw

November 20, 2007 8:04 AM | Link to this

Good morning all. Any proposal to excise earmarks from the Federal budget is use of a scalpel where a meat axe is more appropriate. I cannot justify non-defense spending at the Federal level. Shut down everything, other than the military. Any agency that can survive on “user fees” can stay; every nonmilitary agency should have to comply with Sarbanes Oxley and ERISA and every other law regulating private enterprise.

By HIDT

November 20, 2007 8:05 AM | Link to this

The only pork those folks should be messing with is the ham hocks in the pinto beans in the cafeteria.

By Mid-South Philosopher

November 20, 2007 8:06 AM | Link to this

Good morning, Jim,

Jack Kingston’s proposal to deal with earmarks has all the typical qualities of the “let’s really not do anything” mentality of governance except one. Generally, when government or bureaucracy of any sort wishes to make it appear that a difficulty or problem is being addressed, the “slight of hand” that is used on the public is to appoint a committee, take a long time in studying the situation, and ultimately to do nothing.

Kingston’s one difference, if I understand it correctly, is that the moratorium on earmarks would exist until new rules were reported out of committee.

Did I understand you to report that Kingston said, “The rules wouldn’t have to be adopted, but they would have to be reported.”?

Sounds suspiciously like political double talk to me, Jim. You have a lot more faith in government than do I.

Government, by its very nature, suffers from the Langoliers Syndrome. It eats and eats and eats and eats and eats and eats and eats, and then complains that it is hungry!

By TW

November 20, 2007 8:10 AM | Link to this

Has hindsight not exposed the Iraq war as a pork project?

By Sherry Baby

November 20, 2007 8:17 AM | Link to this

You cant make a silk parse out of a sow’s earmark.

By Dr. Bob

November 20, 2007 8:20 AM | Link to this

Well, I’d keep the CDC, but not much else. Much of the safety regulatory functions might be served well by the fourth estate and the courts.

By Phil

November 20, 2007 8:27 AM | Link to this

I can picture my dad using a statement along the lines of “There’s no meat on them bones” after having read such dribble. The ’80s equivalent would have been “Where’s the beef?”. I guess I’m getting too old to quote a modern-day message of discontent. I recall, in the not-too-distant past, a resolution in Georgia dubbed the Taxpayer Bill of Rights. It was touted, as I recall, as the bill to once and for all put an end to property tax hikes resulting from inflation by bringing these proposed hikes forth - into the sunshine perse, but that’s a story for another day - and in full view of the all too scrutinizing public eye. “Let us prey” said the politician as he headed out amongst his flock.

By Peter

November 20, 2007 8:38 AM | Link to this

The biggest Pork Project has to be Haliburton……….

George and DICK gave them all the Iraq contracts, then we watched them leave the country so they don’t have to pay any taxes on the Profits they have RAPED from the US.

By Curious Observer

November 20, 2007 8:42 AM | Link to this

Earmarks, besides wasting money on questionable projects and bypassing normal legislative scrutiny, essentially hamper federal agencies in their effort to serve the public in the most efficient manner possible. In essence, an earmark states that a certain portion of an agency’s budget must be spent on X Project, regardless of how meritless that project may be. It is very seldom that an agency’s budget is increased to accommodate the earmark.

I do not endorse jbmlaw’s anarchist view that only the defense budget should be deemed worthy of funding. Government does have an important role to play in other areas, including keeping our food supply, our consumer goods, and our environment safe.

But the evil of earmarks consists of their putting a triple-whammy on the taxpayer. First, they are not part of the original version of a bill; they are slipped into the bill more or less in the dark of night. Second, they are not subject to normal legislative scrutiny. A legislator, having read a bill, may vote on it without awareness that an earmark has been inserted after he has read it. And finally, they force a change in an agency’s priorities, essentially depriving more worthy projects of funding. For example, you may live among acres of toxic waste, and an agency might want to address that problem. But if a powerful legislator decides that a town’s water supply in his district is more important than your toxic waste, the agency may not have the funds it would need to address a problem it would otherwise have funded.

Get rid of earmarks, or else require publicizing them, along with their sponsors, to the public before a vote on appropriations occurs.

By Glenn

November 20, 2007 8:54 AM | Link to this

Oy vey ist mir! A passel uff cynix, ve got diss morgan!

Call me meshugennah, but this Capitol plot could work. In a contrarian mood as usual, I want so badly to diss this thing, but you folks all reject it so I get to be against you!

This is indeed a scalpel, jbm, where I too would have wanted a cudgel, but I’m warming to the prospect of what splendid things a scalpel could do in the right hands. Should this proposal go forward in earnest, it will turn Washington upside down. And that’s not hyperbole.

By Ugagrad

November 20, 2007 8:54 AM | Link to this

How about cutting government entitlements to schools in return for a return to local control? What many people don’t realize is that part of the problem with the government schools is government regulations. That is the great unknown with vouchers. Case in point, one of our local private schools which specialized in helping students with learning difficults had for years followed a strict admissions and parental responsibility policies. This year they agreed to accept government vouchers to defray the cost of tuition. Guess what? Since no government money comes with no strings attached, the school now finds itself subject to the same regs as the government schools. Needless to say, several parents have pulled their children out and sent them to schools where the teachers can teach and not worry about government regs.

By Sherry Baby

November 20, 2007 8:58 AM | Link to this

Grading Wooten. Forget Wooten, check out page A15. Every article is poorly written. Gene Bottoms had the best article, but only for it’s irony. Replete with redundancies, Gene writes at a middle school level and deserves a B- for his article about our school principals. He opens with two amazingly well-crafted paragraphs. (Delete paragraph three and pray for training). Then he plows through two awkward paragraphs, but hits a homerun in paragraph five when he illustrates the shallowness of some internship programs. Then he repeats himself till the fade. Education would have been better served if he had written about the latest fossil finds.

Now on to Edward S Brown’s ditty about the Dark Ages: I dont think carnal means what you think it does, sir. Your conclusion was not earned in the body of your piece.

People, just read all the articles on page A15.

I’ll get to wooten in good time. These things must be handled….delicately.

By Anonymous

November 20, 2007 9:04 AM | Link to this

The GOP would be better off if the evangelicals walked out, not the fiscal conservatives. Without the “government belongs in your bedroom” crowd, the voice for smaller government would be proportionately stronger in the Republican camp, and there’d be a chance to strike a balance between corporate favoritism (a given) and minimal economic intrusiveness (the goal).

By ron

November 20, 2007 9:10 AM | Link to this

The only earmarks them birds should have is when you cuff’em up side the head in an effort to get them to breathe right.

By Glenn

November 20, 2007 9:14 AM | Link to this

Ugagrad, you’re on to something. My field’s ed. policy, and some of my colleagues and I have toyed for years with ways to cut those strings of yours. I’ve fantasized a public school that refuses all federal entitlements so as to tell the feddies where they can stick NCLB. Problem is that my imagination is outstripped when my fantasy school ends up looking just like a charter school. Which is not bad, only unoriginal. Perhaps your prescription could be filled by the advent of federal charter schools, which in itself would be a great improvement.

A caveat: the overarching problem with the charter concept is that if string-cutting is an improvement for a school, then it ought to apply to all schools. So, a general rejection of government. Try selling that to the ones who govern.

By deegee

November 20, 2007 9:29 AM | Link to this

My earmarks are stuff, everyone else’s earmarks are crap, as the saying goes. Every politician knows that losing a military base, however obsolete it may be, means trouble for the next election. It’s not their fault, they just keep giving us more of what we ask for.

By anonymous

November 20, 2007 9:31 AM | Link to this

When legislators are earmarkers, earmarks should be legislated.

By Mid-South Philosopher

November 20, 2007 9:40 AM | Link to this

To Glenn, Ugagrad, and others.

The fundamental flaw in the voucher…charter school…choice…verses the current public school model is the brutal truth that government by threat of force is taking tax monies of thousands of Americans, who have no children or grandchildren, and using those monies to educate the children of others. Then those others want to have choice and run the show.

It is absurd!

Sorry, but, if your feet are under my table and you are eating my food, then I call the dance. In other words, until such time as the cost of the education of children becomes the total responsibility of the parents of those children,I don’t want to hear about it. If you choose to have your kids educated at public expense, then don’t expect to run the show.

Now, I will be more than willing to refund that portion of school taxes that every parent pays and let them bargin for the education of their spawn privately.

Oh, wait…$1,500 per year or less doesn’t buy that much does it!?!

By Truthifier

November 20, 2007 9:43 AM | Link to this

In fairness, Title V, Subtitle B of S. 1, the recently passed ethics reform bill, does help to alleviate many of the concerns shared here regarding earmarks. While it doesn’t go as far as some would like, the bill does make the earmarking process substantially more transparent so that unworthy projects are easier to find and eliminate.

By JK

November 20, 2007 9:53 AM | Link to this

government by threat of force is taking tax monies of thousands of Americans, who have no children or grandchildren, and using those monies to educate the children of others

To all those who resent paying taxes for public education in their own communities, I ask: When will you be moving out of our midst? Will you grow old in a cabin you built, eat only food you grow, wear only clothes you make, and tend to your own transportation, communication, sanitation, medical, and entertainment needs, all by yourself with no help from anyone?

…. or will you be living in a civilization and utilizing the goods and services produced and provided in our society by OUR CHILDREN? Just curious.

By James

November 20, 2007 9:54 AM | Link to this

“Family Values”
-Larry Craig
-Jim Galley
-David Vitter
“Corruption”
-Duke Cunningham
-Bob Ney
-Bob DeLay
-Bill Frist “Corruption Possible”
-Ten Stevens
-Don Young
-Tom Feeney
-John Doolittle
-Rick Renzi
-Gary Miller
“Ethics Questions”
-Lisa Murkowski
-Jerry Lewis
-Ken Calvert
-Pete Domenici
-Heather Wilson
-Scooter Libby
-Alberto Gonzales

By Joe

November 20, 2007 9:54 AM | Link to this

How about NO earmarks? Is this hard to understand? Enforce? The politicians believe that the money is theirs to give.It isn’t. Why can’t the state/locals determine where they spend their money? Isn’t this the Repub philosophy…local control…small Fed government?

While I’m at it, no lunches, gifts, dinners, etc from lobbyists. You can meet with them, but at NO personal gain. As a former State Employee, we were not allowed to accept anything, while Legislators could. They said the acceptance of gifts would sway the outcome of the request. How is this different for politicians? They are human (hard to believe some of them are), and intelligent (ditto), but they are prone to corruption the same as employees.

By jbmlaw

November 20, 2007 10:04 AM | Link to this

Dear Dr. Bob @ 8:20, I think the CDC is better in theory than in practice. It would make sense to have a government agency that has a grip on communicable diseases, as those spread involuntarily. I lost faith in CDC when it began to define transfats/obesity and cigarettes as “diseases.” Nanny government.

Dear Curious @ 8:42, our difference is not great. I do not oppose governments supervising “our food supply, our consumer goods, and our environment” but I think such local services ought to be regulated at the local or state level rather than by the central government – let each micro-population determine just how much they want to pay for such “services,” or otherwise bind together in multi-state compacts, much as businesses might when they form trade groups. Federalism.

Dear Sherry @ 8:58, “Gene Bottoms had the best article, but only for it’s irony.” I assume that penultimate word is so-placed entirely for irony?

By getalife

November 20, 2007 10:06 AM | Link to this

Ban lobbyists and the rest of the gop will retire.

By Redneck Convert

November 20, 2007 10:11 AM | Link to this

Well, I’m against these earmarks. Unless it’s for a new NASCAR track up in Forsyth County. That would be doing something people want and need. I hate having to drive all the way down to Hampton to see a race.

Strange thing about these earmarks. They are good if they bring money into your area. They are real bad if they send money someplace else. I don’t see Wooten griping about the earmarks for GA.

What I want to know is what is going to happen to our earmarks when this Hillary person is elected president. Right now, we do pretty good, what with all our Republican reps and a Republican President. But if more Democrats get elected to Congress next year and this Hillary person is President, we ain’t going to have many friends up there when we vote for Republicans down here. Old Sonny will go to Washington with his hat in his hand and come back with it full of s*—pardon my English, ladies. Right now, us Southreners get more money coming back than we send in. That will all change if the librul Democrats take charge up in Washington.

Anyway, I don’t got more time for this blog today. I’m bringing in enough beer in three days to last for six. Have a good day everybody.

By Mid-South Philosopher

November 20, 2007 10:11 AM | Link to this

To JK

Don’t get me wrong. I do NOT resent paying taxes for the education of the children in our society. Only a fool would think that the benefits fail to out-weight the incovenience. What I resent, however, is the notion that those people using the services have the right to lord it over others who are more than helping to pay the bills.

When you use a public service you have a right to participate in the management of that service through the electoral process. However, you do NOT have a right to expect all your preferences to be accomodated.

It is PUBLIC schools!

The voucherites and the choice promulgators want you and me to pay for their kids champagne educational experiences, while Bubba and Bro. get the beer budget curriculum.

By Phil

November 20, 2007 10:13 AM | Link to this

Now we’re starting to get a little “meat on them bones”. You can’t start getting serious about an issue until you get compassionate about it. Just remember to funnel those feelings in a constructive manner. Sometimes I cannot help but wonder who has the greatest sense of entitlement - the taxpayer or the government employee (this includes elected officials since they do get a salary, health care benefits, retirement benefits, etc., at who’s expense?). And, please don’t fool yourself into thinking that this stops at the federal level. Look real close at the state level and the county level. Where does the buck start? At the taxpayer level.

By Shar

November 20, 2007 10:17 AM | Link to this

Dear Mid-South @ 9:40 - While I appreciate your argument on the rights of the piper payer, I think it’s important to consider the justification for tithing by force to fund education. An educated population creates greater wealth, security and quality of life for all, whether they have “spawned” or not, and thus pays for itself in improvement to public wellbeing.

The question is whether or not the education that is being delivered meets this criteria. Glenn, UGAgrad and many others (including myself) believe that the process of the educational establishment often gets in the way of the quality of the end product the taxpayers are buying. The monsoon of special interests and sweetheart dealers that feed at the Dept. of Education, latching onto the huge disbursements with requirements that protect their own interests, do not prioritize the education of children unless it happens to dovetail with their own profit. Therefore, the strings they tie onto federal spending may degrade the delivery of instruction in the classroom and take value away from the taxpayer.

Do the taxpayers buy the process or the end result? If the latter, cutting the strings of federal requirements within the context of accountability for the education actually delivered is preferable to honoring those requirements at the expense of an effectively educated citizenry.

On the earmark issue, politicians will find a way to spend our money for their benefit one way or another. With that in mind, maybe it’s time to eliminate all special spending from legislation and replace it with a dedicated budget for earmarks. That money would be finite and have to cover all such projects, Senate or House, and the relative attributes of the projects would have to be publicly defended and negotiated by the sponsors. At least we’d get some amusement out of what they’ll find a way to weasel out of us anyway, although venues that offer mudwrestling floor shows might take a revenue hit with such exercise freely available on CSPAN.

By JK

November 20, 2007 10:30 AM | Link to this

Mid-South Phil (10:11), so true! I agree. We’re all affected by what comes out of our local school systems, and it’s not just for the parents to decide. I fail to understand the delusional logic of the “every man for himself” types who think that their quality of life would somehow be better in a society where disease, ignorance, and poverty (as opposed to healthy, educated people with hope) surround their little gated homes.

By jm

November 20, 2007 10:33 AM | Link to this

Interesting to see that Representative Kingston found fiscal religion after he fell out of power.

By JohnD

November 20, 2007 10:37 AM | Link to this

Earmarks should disappear. If the earmark would not withstand the scrutiny of the entire legislative body, then why allow the process?

The “scratch my back and I will scratch yours” mentality has fueled this pilfering of the public trough.

The two parties act as one in the Congress and protect each other as long as expedient. Only a public exposure, such as Jim Craig, will turn the Congress on one of their own. Teddy Kennedy has been able to slip along even with the public embarrassments, so even this rule is not inviolate.

I believe the pertinent issue in taxation to be the manner in which the money is spent more than the rate of taxation. Even small government conservatives could live with a government spending wisely, as opposed to our Congress that puts their own welfare ahead of the citizens.

Earmarks are nothing more than an embodiement of the keep my job at all costs theory folowed by Members of Congress.

By getalife

November 20, 2007 10:39 AM | Link to this

” Scott McClellan wrote a book. Here is part of what he has to say:

“The most powerful leader in the world had called upon me to speak on his behalf and help restore credibility he lost amid the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. So I stood at the White house briefing room podium in front of the glare of the klieg lights for the better part of two weeks and publicly exonerated two of the senior-most aides in the White House: Karl Rove and Scooter Libby.

“There was one problem. It was not true.

“I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice President, the President’s chief of staff, and the president himself.”

Told ya they were traitors.

By Mr. Obvious

November 20, 2007 10:43 AM | Link to this

“I fail to understand the delusional logic of the “every man for himself” types who think that their quality of life would somehow be better in a society where disease, ignorance, and poverty (as opposed to healthy, educated people with hope) surround their little gated homes.”

The logic is that the ones in the little gated homes would enslave the rest.

By JohnD

November 20, 2007 10:47 AM | Link to this

Curious @ 8:42

Well written, I take exception only to the comment regarding the additions after “the legislator has read the bill”. I do not believe the Members of Congress read the bills upon which they vote. The Members rely on their staff and the K Street Gang to tell them how to vote.

By Truthifier

November 20, 2007 10:52 AM | Link to this

Joe @ 9:54am, Members of Congress and their staff are now severely limited in what they can accept from lobbyists. A lobbyist can no longer buy something as small as a cup of coffee for a Member of staff without being in violation of the gift ban passed by the current Congress.

By JohnD

November 20, 2007 10:58 AM | Link to this

hasnolife

Have you ever acknowledged the personal attacks, falsehoods and obfuscations disseminated from the White House under the direction of the President, the First Lady, the Chief of Staff and essentially the entire administration?

Oh right, you would not admit any such action on the part of Democrat Comrade Clinton.

By getalife

November 20, 2007 11:00 AM | Link to this

Lobbyists are a legal bribery industry.

Until they ban lobbyists and shut down K Street, nothing will change.

Edwards is talking about it but he was corrupt too.

Paul wants zero income tax to shrink the pie but the rest are business as usual.

By JohnD

November 20, 2007 11:01 AM | Link to this

Truthifier @ 10:52

When was the bill, to which you refer, passed?

By Truthifier

November 20, 2007 11:05 AM | Link to this

John D -

S. 1

1/4/2007 Introduced in Senate 1/18/2007 Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Yea-Nay Vote. 96 - 2. Record Vote Number: 19. 7/31/2007 Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 411 - 8 (Roll no. 763). 9/14/2007 Signed by President. 9/14/2007 Became Public Law No: 110-081

By Truthifier

November 20, 2007 11:11 AM | Link to this

John D - I may have exaggerated with my comment about the cup of coffee (although I do know that many lobby firms in Washington have imposed such a ban on themselves to avoid any legal problems with the new gift ban) but you can go to the website for the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to get a clearer picture of what is allowed.

http://www.house.gov/ethics/HighlightsMay2007.htm

By JohnD

November 20, 2007 11:12 AM | Link to this

Truthifier

Egad, a bi-partisan effort! Could the Members have started listening to the constituents? Probably not, but we can dream.

By getalife

November 20, 2007 11:18 AM | Link to this

Could the Members have started listening to the constituents?

Why should they listen to you? You vote for idiots like w and put the same corrupt people back in office.

Geez.

By anonymous

November 20, 2007 11:22 AM | Link to this

wow, that was really uncalled for getalife. angry?

By getalife

November 20, 2007 11:30 AM | Link to this

Angry, no.

Just telling it like it is.

By Truthifier

November 20, 2007 11:33 AM | Link to this

While there are certainly earmarks that seem ridiculous, it’s important to note that many worthwhile projects are funded via the earmarking process. I’m not saying that earmarking in general is a good thing or a bad thing (I think you can reasonably argue both sides) but it serves no one well to say that every earmark is “pork” when some really worthwhile efforts such as the following are included in spending bills. These projects are from the Labor/HHS bill that was vetoed by the President:

Grady Health Systems, Atlanta, GA for electronic medical records upgrades

Marcus Institute, Atlanta, GA, for equipment

St. Joseph’s Hospital Mercy Care Services, Atlanta, GA for health information technology

St. Joseph’s Hospital, Savannah, GA for facilities and equipment

Southeastern Center for Emerging Biologic Threats, Emory University, Atlanta, GA for programs related to bioterrorism and emerging biological threats

Fulton County Department of Mental Health, Atlanta, GA for a jail diversion program

Fulton County, Atlanta, GA for Project Excell, an intensive outpatient treatment program serving homeless males with co-occurring substance abuse and mental health disorders

Piedmont Hospital, Atlanta, GA for a project regarding the transition of older patients from hospital to home

Marcus Institute, Atlanta, GA for services for children and adolescents with developmental disabilities and severe and challenging behaviors

Jewish Federation of Greater Atlanta, Atlanta, GA, for a Naturally Occurring Retirement Community

Communities in Schools of Georgia, Atlanta, GA, for mentoring programs

Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, for science education partnership programs between colleges, universities, schools and life science community educational organizations

Morehouse College, Atlanta, GA, to establish a research initiative to improve college graduation of minority students

Spelman College, Atlanta, GA, for programs to recruit and increase graduation rates for African-American females pursuing sciences, mathematics, or dual-engineering degrees

By JK

November 20, 2007 11:41 AM | Link to this

Truthifier, thanks for the information. In just a moment, one of the “every man for himself” types will explain why the people helped by these programs deserve to die in the streets from curable diseases or aspire to nothing more productive and meaningful than a job making sandwiches can provide. But money for bridges to nowhere and killin’ people in another country is okay, cause they’re not loving followers of Christ like the “every man for himself” types.

By AJ

November 20, 2007 11:43 AM | Link to this

You stated:

“At the time, Kingston defended earmarks, the single-member-designated appropriations that burst on the national scene two years ago with a $398 million “bridge to nowhere” in Alaska that would connect Ketchikan, a town of 8,900, to its airport on the Island of Gravina, population 50. The project was canceled in September by Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin”

The one critical FACT you conveniently omitted was that there is a REGIONAL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT on Gravina serving the otherwise isolated island cities and communities in SE Alaska.

Quite different!

AJ Ketchikan Resident

By Van

November 20, 2007 12:04 PM | Link to this

Here is the deal. If these projects are such solid, good projects, they can go through the standard legislative process as other funding proposals.

To attach riders or earmarks for these type of projects smacks of the back room, cigar smoke filled meeting you connect to crooks.

I would rather see spending bills that are for one project or purpose, not a grand piece for defense and 100 little items tacked on the bottom.

This also begs the question of a line item veto. Can one be written that meets the constitutional challenges?

By DemDems4Ever

November 20, 2007 12:05 PM | Link to this

hasnolife @ 11:30

You have never “told it like it is”.

You are a one-trick pony with no mind, no self-esteem, and apparently no life away from this blog.

Communist, socialist whatever you are is irrelevant since you have no ability to comprehend anything other than a welfare state to care for your irrelevant self and others like you.

Vote for Hillary, if you have the chance, she will be the doom of the DemocratSocialstCommunist Party of cowards.

By JohnD

November 20, 2007 12:16 PM | Link to this

Truthifier @ 11:33,

The people of Georgia, and certainly to some extent other states, have seen benefit from some or all of those earmarks. Unfortunately, the process of discussion and approval is ignored by the earmark method.

The opportunity for graft and waste is greatly magnified by the earmark process and quite possibly other programs of benefit to a larger body of the electorate are lost due to an earmark.

The appearance of self-promotion on the part of the earmarking legislator is obvious and were there not an aura of entitlement on the part of Members of Congress the process of earmarks would not be tolerated.

An earmark is simply a means to avoid the process of discussion and approval by the larger body. This, in itself, gives the impression the earmark is unworthy of support.

By Van

November 20, 2007 12:22 PM | Link to this

DemDems4Ever,

Take it easy on getalife, one day he will have to move out of his parents home, get a job and start paying taxes.

Once he gets out on his own, he will not get so angry when someone disagrees with him.

I am constantly amazed at the attitude that is he says it, it has to be true. When he grows up, he will become civilized.

By Adam

November 20, 2007 12:23 PM | Link to this

The most effective way to stop wasteful spending would be to prohibit naming projects after themselves. If they can’t see their names attached to the buildings, bridges, roads, and other monuments to themselves the incentive to build it would go away. What other reason to build a bridge to nowhere without naming it the Ted Stevens Memorial Bridge.

By JohnD

November 20, 2007 12:25 PM | Link to this

Truthifier @ 11:33,

P.S. The programs, on the surface, seem relevant and important but how are the earmarked funds tracked?

Since the earmarks are one time additions to other, often unrelated, appropriation bills, who is given the reponsibility to measure the bang for the buck or even whether the money was actually spent as planned?

The system just reeks of potential corruption.

By DemDems4Ever

November 20, 2007 12:32 PM | Link to this

Van,

The constant links to liberal news sources and blogs, quoted as though gospel, are irritating enough but his obvious hate for America and the people who built the country starts to wear on me. I then give in to my more primal instincts and post.

Perhaps if we ignore him - he will just go away.

By JK

November 20, 2007 12:36 PM | Link to this

The system just reeks of potential corruption.

I think the system reeks of actual corruption. Legislators in both parties are guilty because there is no accountability and very little oversight. There’s no accountability because people blindly and stupidly trust the elected officials belonging to their party of choice. “Saxby’s a good, God-fearing Republican, therefore we won’t question what he does, and we’ll be sure to vote for him again! Must be the Dem’s fault!”

In truth, it’s OUR fault. Let’s all write our representatives today and tell them we’re sick of their corruption, pork spending, earmarking, lobbyist smooching, and good-ol-buddy unaudited government contracts! Not that they give a darn what we think…

By JohnD

November 20, 2007 12:40 PM | Link to this

getalife @ 11:18

I do not believe I have ever indicated for whom I cast my vote. Does failing to support radical socialists like H. Clinton then lead you to believe I voted for George W. Bush?

If you believe Members of Congress listen to their constituents I feel sorry for you. The only time of which I am aware, at least in the recent past, is the failed immigration bill.

The bill cited by Truthifier on gifts to Members and staff may be another.

By JohnD

November 20, 2007 12:49 PM | Link to this

JK @ 12:36

Certainly most assume there is actual rather than potential corruption.

I have a friend who has for years ascribed to the theory of “Re Elect Nobody”. Perhaps if we turned them all out - all 535 Members of Congress - politicians would change. That may be the only message to grab their attention.

The long list of earmarks for Georgia presented by Truthifier is an example of the problem. Sure, now the good ole boy is Saxby but in the past he was Herman or Max or some other who was our “crook in Congress”.

Bringing home the bacon puts them back in office and the pigs back home do not realize they are the ones being slaughtered.

By Dusty

November 20, 2007 1:03 PM | Link to this

Oh but of course…no pesky pork project!! No greased palms!! No fatback!!

Right now I am all for turkey—about ten or 12 pounds of it. Everybody approve of that?? Well, thank you.

But I must warn you, I only buy conservative turkeys. Liberal turkeys are much bigger but have so much fat you have to make more gravy than you ever wanted. But good Southern cornbread dressing makes it all delicious.

I wish all of you a great Thanksgiving with the turkey of your choice. May your cranberries be sweet and red (white and blue). Enjoy!!

By Truthifier

November 20, 2007 1:12 PM | Link to this

John D @ 12:25

All of the earmarks I listed from the Labor/HHS appropriations bill would be funded through a federal agency that would presumably be responsible for ensuring that the money is used for the intended purpose. It’s not as if once the earmark is approved, the agency just sends a check and then washes their hands of the situation. There are people at all federal agencies whose job is to audit spending, etc. With regard to your earlier posting that “the process of discussion and approval is ignored by the earmark method” I would have to argue that that is not entirely true. I don’t think the earmarks are any less discussed or argued than any other portion of a spending bill. All earmarks would have to be approved by an appropriations subcommittee and then approved by the full House or Senate Appropriations Committees. Now, you could certainly make the case that the full House or Senate is not going to take time during floor debate to go over every minute provision (although perhaps they should) but it is not accurate to say that earmarks undergo no discussion. Plenty of earmarks are submitted to the appropriations subcommittees, debated, and not included in the bill.

By Glenn

November 20, 2007 1:25 PM | Link to this

This is great! This discussion you folks are having. I just returned from meetings, and reading what I missed since early morning I’m just delighted to see this intelligent, irreverent, creative and funny treatment of Jim’s topic. Not that I’m a referee or something; just to say: keep it up! In most blogs this topic would be leaden balloonishke, but here it’s picked up and examined closely and mocked & coached & coaxed. This never could’ve happened in the Devil’s Workshop that is the Capitol.

[Rudy&Out]

By Jim's a Cherry Picker

November 20, 2007 1:34 PM | Link to this

Hi Jim,

What exactly is Kingston suggesting with his comment about Earmarks being a gift that keeps on giving, in terms of journalism?

Should corruption, graft, greed and the like only be reported on once, or when Fox News sees fit?

Or should citizens be routinely and regularly kept in the loop with regards to the actions of those that claim to represent them?

Personally, I’m very interested. They’re all lying crooks, and the more that is written about them the better.

By Sherry Baby

November 20, 2007 1:41 PM | Link to this

Grading Wooten: A- Great job.

If the new GOP can convince voters that they will spend and tax less…..

By Glenn

November 20, 2007 1:52 PM | Link to this

Question: What’s the difference between a pig and a hog?

Answer: The hog gets slaughtered.

That’s a favorite saying among the staffs of the fiscal committees. What I like increasingly about this plan is that it adds up to a whole greater than its sum. And it’s not hard to accomplish. In fact it’s easy. All that has to happen is for the Representatives to adopt these measures as Rules of the House at the start of next Session.

With these few relatively simple and swift changes, “the business of the People” will immediately take on new meanings, and the commercial real estate market in DC will be revolutionized in a day! The transformation of Congress would be much for the better, and what would result from these provisions would not be Congress Lite, shorn of its fat and calories; it would be a whole new recipe altogether, because right now Congress is only about the fat & calories.

Sure, no member will want to go kosher, but if the heat’s on from the press and public during an election season—and if they all hurt together—then it could sell. And if it sells, and is implemented, it’ll work.

The biggest hurdle, frankly, is Nancy Pelosi. She’s simply too simple a simpleton to attempt an historic restructuring. Heck, she’s still too much of an amateur even to identify the structure of the house. By contrast, this proposal has its finger on the carotid.

Caveat: Like almost all legislative action in all places at all times (the Constitution being the greatest of only a handful of exceptions) it will work only for a time. But that is more than good enough if you ask me. It’s like national defense: the latest defense/weapons system lasts for a time, until the enemy(-ies) develop countermeasures, to which you must respond with yet more countermeasures, etc. The only smart thing to do is to continuously refine. And continuous refinement and reformulation—I mean precisely the “eternal vigilance” of which Sorensen wrote and JFK spoke—is the only footing that will sustain the improvement. Without it the thing gets loopholed by all those diabolically clever Capital denizens who wish to spare themselves a realtor’s commission.

[Rudy&Out]

By Glenn

November 20, 2007 1:53 PM | Link to this

SherryBabe, hat’s off to the silk purse thing. Excelsior!

By Jackie

November 20, 2007 1:54 PM | Link to this

The Congress are political chickens. They publicly speak out fiscal responsibility and voting on what is good for the American people, but, behind the scenes, they inject spending amounts for placate some contributor(s) in their districts. Why do they ignore voting for a house rule that would require them to disclose what earmarks that have added to a bill and make those actions available to the public on a database. They can tolerate the President spying on American citizens, why can’t they tolerate American citizens looking over their shoulders to determine what they have done “in our names!”

By @@

November 20, 2007 2:01 PM | Link to this

Well “POO” Jim, it looks like that’s what politicians have been feeding us for crying out loud.

Maybe members of the Citizens Against Government Waste should be sitting at the table during those committee meeting eyeballing the political HAMS.

So it was two democrats and one republican looking for me to buy them a drink at the bar. I’ll pass before letting them pass out on the “boos”.

Two republicans breeding potatoes? O-:MG…..

Not this conservative Spud Jim. If I lived in Washington State, I’d order his taters mashed and hers fried in the next election.

Kudos to Rep. Jack Kingston for committing to go on a diet…but like Mid-South Philosopher said; if citizens don’t serve as watchdogs, we’ll be The Cur Dog, a trusty and useful servant to the farmer and grazier. We’ll be fighting over the scraps.

Aaaaaarrrgh!!!!!

By Truthifier

November 20, 2007 2:03 PM | Link to this

Jackie, you can already go to thomas.loc.gov and get information on all appropriations bills, which are required to show the name of the requesting Member for all earmarks. The earmarks are typically going to be found in the Committee Report and/or Conference Report and not the actual legislative language.

By Sherry Baby

November 20, 2007 2:25 PM | Link to this

You can put lipstick on a pig, and piglips on a stick, but you cant give lip to a stuck pig. I dont know what that means.

The democrats are spending whole hog, like a porkbarrel full of surrender monkeys. I dont know what that means, either.

I’m out of mixed metaphors. Now I’m frightened.

By Glenn

November 20, 2007 3:04 PM | Link to this

Mid-South, Shar, Ugagrad,

Were the entire public school system boarded up and padlocked tomorrow and left to rot in the sun, no one would be happier than I. However, Mid-South, I cannot imagine—and I’ve tried obstinately to do so—a desirable society in which adults do not (a) make common provisions for the education of the young, (b) co-locate the youngest children under line-of-sight supervision, and (c) jointly hire specialists to do the supervising; that is, teachers. We can do it without state involvement, though many if not most Americans assume that when we make common provision for the delivery of services, our governments should have a hand. The private schools, and especially the diocesan schools, tell a different story, however.

That being said, I can’t abandon the Common School Ideal altogether. It’s an American Original, and it’s one we can still use in some form. In response to your position, M-S, that the school system should be defunded by taxpayers without kids in public schools, I want to respond in the positive—not to say the affirmative—rather than listing the reasons why your proposal is counter-productive.

So let me state as quickly as I can the status quo. The term “Common School” was invented in the 1840s by the American Horace Mann, who rode circuit to every state to preach his gospel. (And yes, he was inspired by John Wesley, and yes he was incapable of discussion a public school system in other than churchy terms.) His doctrine was encapsulated in those two words, Common School, roughly as follows:

• Public schoolhouses were to become commonplace;

• They were to be shared in common;

• They were to be paid for in common by the whole community;

• They were to serve the common interest and highest purpose of the biggest of whole communities, our nation state;

• The greatest common interest and the highest purpose of a republic without an established religion is democracy.

• Since democracy is, of all systems of government, the system which is most intellectually demanding of its polity, who must be citizen-governors, the common cause of democracy was to be served by ensuring that citizens possessed a common set of fluencies fundamental to the operation of a democratic republic.

• Those fluencies were to be ensured through organized and publicly funded pedagogy in basic literacy and numeracy, civics, and moral instruction.

• To ensure that these fluencies were acquired and thus the Republic would endure, school attendance would be compulsory.

So that’s it. As I say, I have my own take on this, but I wanted to put it out there, in good faith, for your take.

One final note. As far as the Supreme Court is concerned, “schooling is not so much a right as a duty imposed upon the individual in the interests of the state.”

[Rudy&Out]

By jbmlaw

November 20, 2007 3:10 PM | Link to this

Dear JohnD and Truthifier this morning, while the ethics bill had many laudable elements, there is a strong argument that it was a “don’t look at the man behind the curtain” bill. Back when the bill was forming, there were a few flaws: http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110010462 I can neither confirm nor deny that the flaws remain. Special to Truthifier, thanks @ 11:33 for outlining the “Federal issues” cured by the corrupt and vetoed Labor/HHS bill – why did Congress propose all of that corporate welfare? (The question I asked myself in each line item you listed, “who is getting that money?”) Crooks, in every case. Dear John D @ 12:25, no they don’t, they sound like some salesman gaming the system to line his own pockets, by spending taxpayer money on “the pitiful.” Heck, I’m gonna start selling overpriced garbage and services to the government, to make life better for “the pitiful.” Dear Truthifier @ 1:12, if Congress directs an agency to spend too much money for something that does not work at all, why would agency supervision of the spending give you comfort?

Dear JK @ 11:41, you cannot justify theft by invoking Christ, saying He would have done it. You are confusing Christ with Mohammed.

Dear Adam @ 12:23, great argument, they should name a highway after you.

Dear Jackie @ 1:54, great argument, no qualifications. Well done.

By Glenn

November 20, 2007 3:11 PM | Link to this

A number of you, in looking at this congressional proposal, have gotten hitched up on the first one-word bullet. It’s like studying a painting and then saying, in summation, that the frame is extraneous.

Sunshine good. Ergo sunshine we have, good. More sunshine, gooder.

[Rudy&Out]

By Glenn

November 20, 2007 3:26 PM | Link to this

Sherry Riserva @ 2:25,

Yep, you committed multiple Wootenisms. In fact you’re a serial Wootenist. Try spoonerisms or Goldwynisms or Yogisms, but never ever Bowdlerize, please.

[R’08]

By JK

November 20, 2007 3:28 PM | Link to this

Dear jbmlaw @ 3:10, Your interpretation of the words of others is interesting and wrong. I would never invoke Christ to “justify theft,” but I appreciate the creative way you slander and slur. (FYI: Taxes were collected and wasted long before I came along, bonehead.) Does this slime work in the courtroom? Oh, sorry. How would you know….

By Sherry Baby

November 20, 2007 3:31 PM | Link to this

Jbmlaw, and how much government cheese did you steal and then sell back to the government? How many needles did you collect on the Jersey shore, and then sell back to the hospitals as new, spreading the inhalation form of male menopause to unsuspecting methadone abusers?

Tell us that, jbmlaw, and maybe we’ll have some respect for you, fair ‘muff? Remember, where the sun dont shine is the best disinfectant, at least for lawyers.

By Sherry Baby

November 20, 2007 3:45 PM | Link to this

JK, jbmlaw was just testing to see if you’d swing at that. You did. Point, game, set, match Jbmlaw.

What have I warned you smegmites about swinging at everything the trolls on wooten’s blog throw at you? Huh?

Take the next pitch, Barry.

By Truthifier

November 20, 2007 3:46 PM | Link to this

jbmlaw, I don’t quite understand your comment that “if Congress directs an agency to spend too much money for something that does not work at all, why would agency supervision of the spending give you comfort?” Are you saying that Piedmont Hosipital, Emory University, the Marcus Institute, Georgia State University, etc. are run by crooks? And why do say that none of these programs “work”? Do you have evidence to support this?

By Truthifier

November 20, 2007 3:47 PM | Link to this

jbmlaw, I don’t quite understand your comment that “if Congress directs an agency to spend too much money for something that does not work at all, why would agency supervision of the spending give you comfort?” Are you saying that Piedmont Hosipital, Emory University, the Marcus Institute, Georgia State University, etc. are run by crooks? And why do say that none of these programs “work”? Do you have evidence to support this?

By Truthifier

November 20, 2007 3:51 PM | Link to this

Sorry jbm, I left off the “Crooks, in every case” part of your posting.

By Glenn

November 20, 2007 4:13 PM | Link to this

O JK lighten up. He’s just alluding to his favorite sermon, taxation = stealing. Besides, he’s mistaken about the Naz being down on thieves. On the contrary, He hung out with them a lot, and right to the bitter end. And His most voluble of hand-picked Disciples was a master thief, a tax collector.

I don’t blame you for being sick of self-righteous hypocrisy. There’s a lot of it goin’ ‘round, now as ever. Hell the Naz Himself cursed it violently—in street slang!—and it was they, the most self-righteous ones, who had Him tortured to death.

So your sarcasm is warranted, and it also raises an interesting, not-so-funny point. Why do conservatives not see a contradiction between their gospeling with one hand and wallet-clutching with the other? Part of the answer, obviously, is that we feel that government makes a hash of most things; that bigger units of government make the worst hash of all; and that the bigger the government the more you get tyranny-creep.

There’s another reason why religious conservatives, especially those professing Christ, resent esp. government-provided social services. It’s because, as Sister Ellen said here last month (and I paraphrase), to leave social services to the government is to allow government to usurp our sacred vocation. Therefore it sacralizes the government—a scary perversion—and desecrates us all.

That, in my estimation, is why the Sister wrote in, because to her it is, as it were, a governmental restraint of trade, spelled “vocation”, in the sense of a sacred calling. Some of us Protestants reluctant to foot the bill for overweaning social services are driven in part by the notion that every Christian, clerical or lay, has such a calling to find ways to share abundantly the caritas that we attribute to Him, and through which we pay tribute to Him. This snippet of doctrine is a signature of John Wesley, who founded American Methodism, in Savannah, in 1836. That legacy is still palpable in these parts, and even in this blog if you’re looking for it.

That’s why it’s so cool that you and others here keep bugging the self-righteous ones to testify as to what they’ve done in the way of keeping their brother. Keep it up.

By Sherry Baby

November 20, 2007 4:23 PM | Link to this

Glennduhng, I have no idea what you just said, or what you’ve said all day. Why do you think you’re supposed to twist every phrase into some vague reference to some unknown moving target of wit and sarcasm? Nobody can follow it. And it gets too long.

I think you need a refresher course in punditry. Lesson one. STFU, moron, and stick your head in the toilet. Idiot.

lol, just kidding. you rock.

By Glenn

November 20, 2007 4:28 PM | Link to this

JK, correction: I meant to type 1736, not 1836.

By Jackie

November 20, 2007 4:37 PM | Link to this

Let us not forget how we got in this pickle. Dubya and his band of thieves begged, borrowed and stole money from anyone, anywhere, anyhow they could to “make” things look good. The economy is falling apart, oil is close to $100 a barrel and expected to go to possibly $200 a barrel, the jobs are being outsourced at a record pace, you can not afford to educate yourself or your children, your taxes have not gone up and the services that you expect have gone down. Dubya can not put together a foreign policy program because he is afraid to anger the Chinese, Japanese or Brits because we owe them so much money. On top of that, the dollar is at record lows against the major currencies of the world and is expected to fall further. If you will remember, Saddam Hussein said that he was going to denominate his oil in Euros in the early 90’s and Daddy Bush said he would destroy the world’s economy and Saddam was attacked. Just proves that life is circular; what goes around comes around!

By Glenn

November 20, 2007 5:17 PM | Link to this

SherryBomb @ 3:45,

Sosumi, wasabi.

By Sherry Baby

November 20, 2007 5:44 PM | Link to this

Glennduhng, azzhulesaywhat?

By catlady

November 20, 2007 5:46 PM | Link to this

Here is an easy one: no earmarks, no matter how worthy. The local government, presumably more in tune with the needs of the locals, decides priorities. Local folks pay the taxes (it does not just magically generate into the federal coffers). Local decisions are made about how to spend it. Real world stuff, with no rich uncle giving you more money for candy after you blow all of it on gum.

Also, no signing statements. Congress passes the laws. period. The prez is to carry them out, like it or not. He/she can lobby Congress, but not the ex post scriptum signing statement route.

By Glenn

November 20, 2007 5:57 PM | Link to this

Excellent, Catlady. There’s something to that. One problem is that the locals usually petition the Representative for the pork already, so the direction of the trickle is upwards. But on the principle of devolution, closer to We The Peeps the governing is, the better. Maybe you could have the advantage you want if the local officials had to have due process—notice, public review, public comment, public hearing—before they were allowed to do the deal with their Rep., and at the House end, before the Rep. were allowed to discuss such matters with them. (We already do something similar with fundraising as a topic of dicussion during official hours.) This kind of public process, as it pertains to local pork requests, now happens only sometimes.

By tristar96

November 22, 2007 11:45 AM | Link to this

I’m not a fan of Rep. Kingston, but he and the other members of the appropriations committee are proposing a workable solution. I doubt that congress will approve drastic rule changes, but the publicity from the committee reports would be loud and clear - the people they represent want a change. Seems that our representatives in congress don’t pay attention to much from us, but given the timing of a report around election time next November, they might listen. In the meantime, Rep. Kingston and our other representatives should continue to milk the pork if for not other reason than to give the voters an idea of how bad things are.