- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 18, 2010 at 7:50 am #597032
dawsonctParticipantSoooo…
Republicans, seats are open on the House appropriations committee. Prime seats for those draconian cuts that should only be done during Democratic Presidential administrations. YOU can set the budgetary agenda for the next two years. No need to be polite; historically highly sought after committee seats, up for the taking! Yoohoo!? Bachman? King? Anyone!?
November 18, 2010 at 6:14 pm #708595
JoBParticipantdawsonct…
wishing and hoping isn’t enough.
we can’t afford the insanity of the absurd right now
i literally pray nightly
that party republican infighting will save us from Bachman and her gang of incompetents as a committee chairs…
November 18, 2010 at 6:32 pm #708596
DPMemberGood morning, dawsonct.
As I understand it, an earmark is just a set-aside in a spending bill. It might be “pork”; it might not be.
Pork, on the other hand, is national tax money allocated to some purpose that might be good for some congressperson’s district, but is not necessarily good for the nation as a whole.
Examples of pork would be a program to build warships that even the Navy doesn’t want, or a research grant to study commercial uses for chupacabra fur.
During campaigns, outcumbents (like Dino Rossi) like to criticize incumbents (like Patty Murray) for porcine expenditures. And they can get away with this simply because they, the challengers, not having been in office yet, haven’t had a chance to bring home any bacon of their own. But you don’t hear too much specific anti-pork rhetoric between incumbents, because they nearly all have a record of supporting pork barrel projects. That’s how the system works after all: You eat my pork, I’ll eat yours. You don’t squawk about my budget amendment to protect military golf courses, I’ll vote for your bill to fund an underwater theme park in your home town.
Right now the Republicans are talking the talk about shrinking the deficit by cutting pork, but we’ll see if they have the guts to walk the walk. I don’t know about the rest of their program, but on that part of it, I wish them well.
Here’s a great Web page for comparing earmarks supported by Washington’s Congressional crew. I first posted this several months ago, but it’s still just as relevant today:
November 18, 2010 at 7:09 pm #708597
maplesyrupParticipantThing is, “pork” and “earmarks” are around 2% of the total budget.
Cutting wasteful spending is a start, and it’s a good thing, but doing away with pork isn’t going to fix the deficit.
But “slashing earmarks” sure makes a nice headline for politicians.
November 18, 2010 at 7:21 pm #708598
DPMemberWhere did you get the 2% figure, maple? Depending on how you define pork, I’d say that’s pretty low.
I define a large part of the military budget as pork. All of Halliburton’s government contracts would be pork too, as far as I’m concerned, and how many Halliburtons are running around out there?
Tax loopholes could also be counted as pork — why not? — since they are usually directed toward specific corporations in exchange for specific campaign contributions or other favors (see Rangel, Charles).
Trust me, if earmarks really end up getting slashed, it’ll be more than just “a nice headline.” It’ll be meaningful.
November 18, 2010 at 7:55 pm #708599
dawsonctParticipantHi DP, allow me to introduce myself: pretty much everything I post (unless it’s something serious, like food) is written with a dose of irony attached.
—
If you would like me to spell out my point I would be happy to, but now that you know the direction from which I come, I think you can do the rest yourself.
—
JoB, I don’t want those asshats driving the car either, but the RAN on their commitment to fiscal responsibility, and now they are hiding from the opportunity to actually DO THE JOB THEY PROMISED WHEN THEY RAN FOR OFFICE!
It DOES play against their Jude Wanniski spelled out game-plan, how do you play double-Santa Claus when you are cutting funding to programs that may effect your district?
November 18, 2010 at 8:01 pm #708600
JoBParticipantdawsonct…
you create a political passion play over earmarks while you extend and deepen tax cuts to the wealthy and big business.
it doesn’t have to be rational.
it’s a passion play
and they have pockets deep enough to sell it.
November 18, 2010 at 8:21 pm #708601
dawsonctParticipantAgreed JoB, which is why I feel they need to be loudly and constantly called on it.
November 18, 2010 at 10:14 pm #708602
maplesyrupParticipantDP I can’t remember where I heard that stat but a quick Google search turned up this article http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20023236-503544.html which claims that it’s actually > 0.05% of the budget.
The point is, earmarks are really a small part of overall spending. When a politician complains about earmarks, more often than not it’s a smoke screen because there are a lot of other areas (like defense) that can be cut too.
November 19, 2010 at 12:27 am #708603
DPMemberOK. I agree with you, maple.
November 19, 2010 at 8:15 pm #708604
dawsonctParticipantYeah DP, it’s really quite funny what a tempest in a teapot the whole earmark fiasco has been. Essentially, it is money that is GOING to be spent, being directed to it’s final destination by OUR elected representatives, who, theoretically, represent OUR interests.
So essentially, the T-baggers were demanding that the power be taken from them and their representatives, and handed to the president.
I wonder if anyone ever explained it to them that way?
November 19, 2010 at 10:17 pm #708605
JoBParticipant -
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.