Despite promises, few in House make earmark requests public

[RiverStone]

Source: CNN

From Drew Griffin and Kathleen Johnston - 6/19/07

(CNN) -- Despite the new Democratic congressional leadership's promise of "openness and transparency" in the budget process, a CNN survey of the House found it nearly impossible to get information on lawmakers' pet projects.

Staffers for only 31 of the 435 members of the House contacted by CNN between Wednesday and Friday of last week supplied a list of their earmark requests for Fiscal Year 2008, which begins on October 1, or pointed callers to Web sites where those earmark requests were posted.

Of the remainder, 68 declined to provide CNN with a list, and 329 either didn't respond to requests or said they would get back to us, and didn't. (Find out how your representative responded)

"As long as we are not required to release them, we're not going to," said Dan Turner, an aide to Rep. Jim McCrery, R-Louisiana.



Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/18/earmarks/index.html

---

Sadly, stories like this suggest the lines between the DEMS and rethugs are blurred. In other words - it's politics as usual! Does it really matter which party is in control? We hope that DEMS stand for something uniquely different; ultimately actions speak louder than words on The Hill.

What would happen if politicians DID reveal all their earmark requests? Maybe an more open and honest government? :shrug:

Not one DEM or rethug from my home state of Washington provided a list of earmarks. That's a bummer. If you have a rep that walked his/her talk with full disclosure --- please recognize them. They deserve lots of kudos!

[pinto]

1. Entrenched system of funding local pet projects, some very worthwhile, some otherwise,

in the House, whose members represent only 30,000 citizens, each, iirc.

I don't cotton to earmarks, yet see it as a result of local support for a project as well as a Representative's response to a small electorate, and the prevailing expediency of earmarking local funding projects.

I'd like to see some reasonable overhaul, that would provide greater oversight without bogging down the House with thousands of individual spending bills.

Perhaps an ad hoc House/Senate conference committee to review purely local earmarks with the State senators and a recommendation back to the House for approval or disapproval.


:shrug:

[lander]

2. Not exactly.

in the House, whose members represent only 30,000 citizens, each, iirc.

At that rate, there'd be about 13,000,000 people living in the United States.

As there are 435 members of the House of Representatives, and approximately 300 million people living in the U.S., the number is actually closer to 700,000 people per Representative.

[rodeodance]

3. 'earmarks' are not bad in and of themselves, but overtime because of stuff

like this (secrecy, slipping into larger bills in the dead of night, ect)----they all get a bad name.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

4. 34,000 well intentioned favors? oh pleeeeeze.

this is sleaze of the worst kind. Even the GOPers only managed some 18000 earmarks. This is the epitome of corruption. Shame on Obey, shame on the dems.

[hollowdweller]

5. My high hopes are not being realized

The old Democratic congress with Jim Wright, Rostenkowski et al was more effective than this one. Not pleased with the leadership at all.

[hughee99]

6. Since it's the "Democratic congressional leadership's" promise

I wonder how the leadership themselves responded (and the leaders of the appropriations committee)
Nancy Pelosi - No
Steny Hoyer - No Response
James Clyburn - No Response
Obey - No
Murtha - No Response


For the repukes
John Boehner - No Earmarks requested
Roy Blunt - No
Jerry Lewis - No Response
Bill Young - No response