McCaskill-led earmark probe finds $834 million in requests (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


tazzygirl -> McCaskill-led earmark probe finds $834 million in requests (12/12/2011 9:19:38 AM)

A six-month study of this year’s defense authorization bill has identified 115 spending proposals as earmarks worth $834 million, including 20 by Republican freshmen who campaigned against the pet projects, according to a copy of the report provided to The Washington Post.

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), whose staff produced the study, called the behavior a “bold flaunting” of the GOP-led moratorium on earmarks. She chastised Republican House members for removing documents about earmarks from their Web sites that would have made it easier to identify the practice.

“It was perplexing that so many Republicans had scrubbed their Web sites,” said McCaskill, who on Friday gave copies of the report to the chairman and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee. “If you are going to tout the earmarks you received, why not remain transparent? For me, the entire thing is disappointing. ”

In the analysis, McCaskill’s staff said it found 40 earmark requests from House Republicans and 75 from House Democrats, the report shows. The requests, which target spending to specific projects in a member’s district, were passed over the summer, largely en masse, without public debate.

The report found that 31 other items appeared to be earmarks, but the lack of documentation made it impossible to connect them to specific lawmakers.

On Monday, McCaskill will distribute copies of the 15-page report to the full Armed Services Committee, along with a spreadsheet that names each member who requested the funding.

McCaskill said Friday that she is asking that the conference committee strip out all of the earmarks, which were called “amendments” in the bill. If any remain, she will fight them on the floor of the Senate.

Last week, McCaskill and Sen. Patrick J. Toomey (R-Pa.) introduced a bill that would make earmarks illegal. She said her staff’s findings underscore the need for the legislation.

........

McCaskill said some of the most brazen behavior came from freshmen who, just months before they sought funding for their pet projects, had been on the campaign trail denouncing them.

The report highlights a request from Rep. Robert T. Schilling (R-Ill.), one of the 13 freshmen who sought earmarks, McCaskill said.

The report says Schilling added a $2.5 million earmark for Quad City Manufacturing Lab at the Rock Island Arsenal in Rock Island, Ill., for the “development of innovative manufacturing techniques and process for munitions and weapons systems.”

Schilling’s request matched the language in an earmark to the federal research facility by his predecessor, former representative Phil Hare (D), the report said.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mccaskill-led-earmark-probe-finds-834-million-in-requests/2011/12/08/gIQAl0MrlO_story.html




erieangel -> RE: McCaskill-led earmark probe finds $834 million in requests (12/12/2011 6:58:07 PM)

I've never liked this idea of earmarks.  To me, if a pol wants something for his/her district, that pol should be required to introduce a bill requesting the funding and let both Houses debate the merits of the project.  Funding projects by attaching, often unrelated, spending to bills is just a way to bribe for our elected officials to 'bribe' one another into voting for things which they may not normally vote for.  It is just one of the travesties of our political process.




Lucylastic -> RE: McCaskill-led earmark probe finds $834 million in requests (12/13/2011 3:55:13 AM)

peanut gallery is awful quiet on this I see




DaddySatyr -> RE: McCaskill-led earmark probe finds $834 million in requests (12/13/2011 4:07:22 AM)

I'm old enough to remember President Nixon (and just about every president, since) complaining about wanting a line item veto. Sounds like a simple solution to me.

Congress will never pass it, though. Everybody wants their share of the pork. They have to raise so much money to get re-elected that they're more concerned with providing good business deals for the deepest pockets in their district than for voting for what is going to do their constituants the most good. And therein lies the argument for returning elected office to what it started off to be; public service.

Anyway, now that I've told you more than you want to know about ducks ...



Peace and comfort,



Michael




tazzygirl -> RE: McCaskill-led earmark probe finds $834 million in requests (12/13/2011 5:33:56 AM)

Of course it is, Lucy. No one can point fingers at the other side on this one.

They all are fucked up... and both sides will remain quiet because, in this, there is no spin.




DarkSteven -> RE: McCaskill-led earmark probe finds $834 million in requests (12/13/2011 7:53:28 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: erieangel

I've never liked this idea of earmarks.  To me, if a pol wants something for his/her district, that pol should be required to introduce a bill requesting the funding and let both Houses debate the merits of the project.  Funding projects by attaching, often unrelated, spending to bills is just a way to bribe for our elected officials to 'bribe' one another into voting for things which they may not normally vote for.  It is just one of the travesties of our political process.


I agree.

The amazing thing is that "without" earmarks, Congress couldn't find a way to pass a spending bill and the government nearly shut down until they managed with incredible fanfare to come up with a compromise bill that deferred actually accomplishing anything.  I cannot believe that they actually had earmarks and still couldn't get anything done.




Lucylastic -> RE: McCaskill-led earmark probe finds $834 million in requests (12/13/2011 12:43:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

I'm old enough to remember President Nixon (and just about every president, since) complaining about wanting a line item veto. Sounds like a simple solution to me.

Congress will never pass it, though. Everybody wants their share of the pork. They have to raise so much money to get re-elected that they're more concerned with providing good business deals for the deepest pockets in their district than for voting for what is going to do their constituants the most good. And therein lies the argument for returning elected office to what it started off to be; public service.

Anyway, now that I've told you more than you want to know about ducks ...



Peace and comfort,



Michael


Hello there Michael.While IM old enough to remember Nixon, I was in a different country, Ive only been folllowing US politics strongly since 2007-8?
I agree with you, I dont believe it will be stopped, as the hypocricy and kickbacks n rewards are far to valuable to give up.
Ducks have watertight asses*just wanted to add to the topic:)*
Peace :)
Lucy




BanthaSamantha -> RE: McCaskill-led earmark probe finds $834 million in requests (12/13/2011 2:30:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

I'm old enough to remember President Nixon (and just about every president, since) complaining about wanting a line item veto. Sounds like a simple solution to me.

Congress will never pass it, though.

Peace and comfort,

Michael




Congress did pass a line-item veto law. The Supreme Court went on to rule it unconstitutional.

Anyways, all a line-item veto law does is pass the buck from pork-seeking Congresspeople to the President.




willbeurdaddy -> RE: McCaskill-led earmark probe finds $834 million in requests (12/13/2011 2:33:17 PM)

NM bantha answered

ETA: "Anyways, all a line-item veto law does is pass the buck from pork-seeking Congresspeople to the President."

He can pass it right back with the veto, and let them override it.





Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125