36k pork requests hidden deliberately by Dems (spin) OR is it that the HAC Committe is overwhelmed?

[WePurrsevere]

Is Obey really doing this to "hide" it deliberately as this AP writer insinuates? Or... is it as Obey said, because the committee is overwhelmed with so many? With 36,000 I can certainly see that quite easily, What gets me is we all know darn well that not ALL "pork" requests are by Dems. x( I wonder how many (what percent) of those 36,000 earmarks are Dem vs Rep I also wonder how many earmarks are the 'norm"? :shrug: ("Liberal Media" my bonnie backside:grr:)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/03/AR2007060300248.html

Democrats Hide Pet Projects From Voters

By ANDREW TAYLOR
The Associated Press
Sunday, June 3, 2007; 7:20 AM
<snip>
Rather than including specific pet projects, grants and contracts in legislation as it is being written, Democrats are following an order by the House Appropriations Committee chairman to keep the bills free of such earmarks until it is too late for critics to effectively challenge them.

Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., says those requests for dams, community grants and research contracts for favored universities or hospitals will be added to spending measures in the fall. That is when House and Senate negotiators assemble final bills.

<snip>

As a result, most lawmakers will not get a chance to oppose specific projects as wasteful or questionable when the spending bills for various agencies get their first votes in the full House in June.

<snip>

Obey insists he is reluctantly taking the step because Appropriations Committee members and staff have not had enough time to fully review the 36,000 earmark requests that have flooded the committee.

What Obey is doing runs counter to new rules that Democrats promised would make such spending decisions more open.

[Vinca]

1. It's at this point the 2 parties merge into a money fest.

They all have to bring home the bacon to get the votes. Same old, same old.

[madrchsod]

2. "i`ll accept your bridge -if you accept my milk subsidy"

that`s the way it works. if one brings home the money then one gets reelected and that`s the nature of the beast. what we forget is that 95% of the earmarks may do some good for the citizens of this country. spending close 50% to our federal budget to murder people really does`t benefit anyone at all

[Telly Savalas]

4. But there's an opportunity cost for every earmark.

That bridge and milk subsidy might be nice, but it could be the case that the money would be better spent on a bus system and a rural health clinic. But since transparency and accountability take the back seat to "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours", there aren't any mechanisms in place to properly prioritize our needs. The Democrats are the damn majority party so they ought to be putting such procedures in place. Or are we going to apply that lame "we don't have the votes" excuse to this situation too?

Whining that the HAC is overwhelmed by 36,000 earmark requests is weak. If this number is on par with previous years, then they should have made sure the proper staff to handle the volume of work. If the number of earmarks has seen a serious increase, then they should crucify the GOP on it if that's the source of the new earmarks, or tell their rank and file to get their shit together if its Democratic earmarks.

I'm tired of the fucking excuses. This isn't the school board of Podunksville, this is the legislative body of the most powerful nation in history and its members are professionals. They need to start doing their jobs.

[INdemo]

3. The way this article is written all the "pork" is added to bill by

Democrats..it mentions just 3 projects and I think with a little research one would find there is plenty of Republican requests too.
(yes I saw your comment) Im going to research this bill and see just how many Repuke projects are in it.
But of course the intention of this article was to pin all the pork spending on the Democrats and give the corporate media a talking point to spin against the Democrats
And so far the author has met that objective.

[WePurrsevere]

6. That is how it came across & was meant to I'm sure. I'd be very interested in what you find out.

I find "pork" an interesting concept. Some of it I truly understand and support but some is just so wild (like Steven's bridge to no where). It wouldn't be quite so bad if there was totally open disclosure of exactly what is asked for, who asks for it, how much it will cost, why it was needed/granted and done so that it can be considered and debated properly. Perhaps set limits on how much each rep can ask for too... 36,000 (and how much $$$) seems like an awful lot.

FWIW if you didn't see this show on "pork" on PBS last year I thought it was very good and certainly got me thinking more then ever about this topic: http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcriptNOW207_full.html

[papau]

5. 35,000 earmarks by the GOP not passed in the last budget are no doubt the bulk of it n/t

n/t

[AtomicKitten]

7. that speaks more to the amount of earmarks

... than anything else to me ... if the Dems are overwhelmed by the amount of earmarks, that means there are too damn many earmarks, or at least put them to good use and bribe the Republicans to vote for stopping the war.

One way or the other, Democrats must BE the change we seek.