Earmarking GOP Hypocrites

TaxPayers for CommonSense has put together a fantastic data base on the Omnibus spending bill, the states which receive the most earmarks and the worst government offenders.

From TaxPayers for CommonSense,



Cochran (R-MS.), Wicker (R-MS.), Landrieu (D-LA.), Harkin (D-WI.), Vitter (R-LA.), Bond (R-MO.), Feinstein (D-CA.), Inouye (D-HI.), Shelby (R-AL.), and Grassley (R-IA.)

Six out of the ten worst offenders are Republicans. If you are going to talk the talk, then you are going have to walk the walk. They are HYPOCRITES and there is no getting around it.

Of course, for the Mississippi and Louisiana delegation, there is the argument that Congress has been holding back or releasing Katrina money for assisting homeowners to rebuild. This has left these Senators with little choice but to seek out extra money to help in the effort to rebuild their states. You can decide that one for yourself, to me there is no excuse.

Republican leadership and some constituents are indignant about the Obama's spending and earmarks, his hypocrisy is inconsequential. Anyone who is politically informed should know that he would say one thing and do another, eternally campaigning.

Nevertheless, the GOP is another story, the leadership has chosen to stand under the banner of fiscal conservatism in an effort to reunite the party and to have a chance to stand against the Democrats in 2010. The question is how can you preach a certain standard, talk about Obama's inadequacies, and then not live up to that standard? This equates a recipe for defeat. So, until the GOP cleans up its own house you should get used to hearing Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid.

Continue reading ...

Governor Sarah Palin is No Reformer...What is She Then?

CT

What we have been hearing from the MSM and the Left is that John McCain and Sarah Palin are liars, especially when it comes to Sarah Palin's record on fiscal reform. Most notably the infamous, "Bridge to Nowhere" and earmarks. Do they have a point or is this a partisan attack? The problem is neither side is offering anything more than surface evidence to back up their claims, that is just annoying. Well here is some sound evidence you decide. First, "The Bridge to Nowhere."

Palin had this to say while running for governor in September 2006, Palin assured the Ketchikan Chamber of Commerce she was all for the bridge. “The money that’s been appropriated for the project, it should remain available for a link, an access process as we continue to evaluate the scope and just how best to just get this done,” Palin said then, according to a story in the Ketchikan Daily News. “This link is a commitment to help Ketchikan expand its access, to help this community prosper.” PoliFacts.com

October of 2006, Palin was asked directly, “Would you continue state funding for the proposed Knik Arm and Gravina Island bridges?” Her answer: “Yes. I would like to see Alaska’s infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now — while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist.” PoliFacts.com

Palin took over as governor in December 2006. "In February 2007 her proposed state budget didn't include state funding for the Ketchikan bridge. A spokesman noted that Palin's proposed capital budget focused on projects that could draw federal money, too. At that point, according to the Ketchikan Daily News, the cost of the bridge had risen $67-million and former Gov. Frank Murkowski had recommended putting $195-million in the state budget for Ketchikan's bridge." PoliFacts.com

This was from a September 2007 article which appeared in the Anchorage Daily News "Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398 million bridge is not the answer," Gov. Sarah Palin said in a prepared statement. "

This was taken from Anchorage Daily News concerning confusion about her stance, "One year later, Ketchikan's Republican leaders said they were blindsided by Palin's decision to pull the plug. "

Here is something that is very interesting. "Congress eventually removed the earmark language but the money still went to Alaska, leaving it up to the administration of then-Gov. Frank Murkowski to decide whether to go ahead with the bridges or spend the money on something else." Anchorage Daily News

This brings up two points of contention for me. Congress still gave the money to Alaska even after the upheaval the bridge caused, essentially they left it up to the state of Alaska to decide what to so with the money. Congress fulfills the role of Pontius Pilate in this one. They give the money to Alaska but the earmark language is removed, Alaska still gets the money for the bridge, and if they build it Congress can claim no responsibility in the matter.

Secondly, if this statement is true it would explain why Palin blindsided them by not going through with the bridge project. The money was allocated, Alaska had the choice, and Congress was protected. But, inevitably she did not. Reason, the bridge was getting over bloated to about $400,000,000. Now, here is something else that I came across.

This is also from the Anchorage Daily News, "Local leaders shouldn't have been surprised when Palin announced she was turning to less-costly alternatives, Leighow said. Indeed, Leighow produced a report quoting Palin, late in the governor's race, indicating she would also consider alternatives to a bridge." Funny, you aren't hearing about this.

Now onto her record on earmarks and fiscal responsibility. It is common knowledge that Alaska is first in the Federal dollars spent in the state versus federal dollars it returns in the form of taxes. per captia. Although, Alaska is only 44th in the nation for the amount of federal expenditures it receives as of FY 2005. AAAS Palin has claimed to be against earmarks and wasteful government spending.

Earmarks: "For the 2007 federal budget year, the administration of former Gov. Frank Murkowski submitted 63 earmark requests totaling $350 million, Palin's staff said. That slid to 52 earmarks valued at $256 million in Palin's first year. This year, the governor's office asked the delegation to help them land 31 earmarks valued at $197 million." Anchorage Daily News

But the Citizens Against Government Waste tells a little bit different tale. (2005) Alaska again led the nation with $985 per capita ($646 million), or 30 times the national pork average of $33. 2005 Pig Book Summary (2008) Alaska led the nation with $556 per capita ($380 million). 2008 Pig Book Summary

Now, this is not just earmarks, this is total federal expenditures including grants etc. The total savings to Alaska, since Plain entered office, is a difference of $266,000,000 totally, with a $197,000,000 savings just in earmarks alone. Still a ways to go, but some remarkable improvement.

Budget: This was taken from the Anchorage Daily News concerning the FY 2008 Capital budget. "Gov. Sarah Palin cut $268 million from the capital budget on Friday. That's a lot of money, but still less than 10 percent of the entire $3 billion capital budget."

In my opinion Palin is no reformer. She is, as Fred Barnes put in his Weekly Standard article, a pragmatist. Again, this is my take on her. She did quite a bit of good in her 20 months a Governor of Alaska and has displayed a willingness to go against the system and try to improve it, despite the controversy. From her time as mayor of Wasilla to Governor of Alaska there has been an interesting development of pragmatism and growth, both politically and personally.

CT

Continue reading ...

More Omni-Bull, the Air-Dropped Earmark Saga

C.T.
Let me start my rant with this. I guess I am what you call a true right wing, red to the bone, conservative of Burkean proportions. I am no RINO (Republican In Name Only), no where near a centrist, no where near a liberal, some might even say, no where near a Republican. Despite all that, I would hope that every person wearing any of the titles I mentioned above would be able to find common ground with me on this abusive, non-regulated spending that Congress has been up to for qutie sometime. I have just read through an article by Marc Sheppard, a contributor at the New Media Journal.us. Mr. Sheppard concentrated on the almost inane comments and claims of the illustrious Senate Majority Leader, Dingy Harry Reid. [1] I'm staying away from criticizing ole' Dingy or the Democrat Party. In my opinion, he is just the mouth piece for Congress, party affiliation has nothing to do with this one. What concerns me the most is the information about air-dropped earmaks. This is a relatively new term which came into existence about a year ago.

According to Brad Dayspring, a poster at the Republican Study Committee Blog, an air-dropped earmark by definition is “secretly inserted in back room negotiations between House and Senate appropriators. This means that these specific earmarks were not passed by either the House or Senate during previous consideration of spending bills, were not subject to a point of order, amendment or debate on the floor of either body questioning their merit.” [2] By my laymans understanding, if no legislative consideration is given to these appropriations, then they are illegal and amount to "taxation without representation."

Senator Reid went on to make this odd statement,

“We worked very hard on this bill. And any piece of legislation that we deal with, any appropriation bill, there are earmarks the president has. That's part of the deal.”

With no one in the gallery standing to challenge the peculiar gaffe, the Senate leader went on to suggest that Congressional pork was therefore necessary because “[the president] should not have total control over the appropriation process.” And, lest anyone in the crowd remain anywhere short of thoroughly bewildered, he added:

“So all this airdropping stuff--this is a new term that has just come recently. We followed the rules. No one raised a point of order when it was in the Senate.” [1]

C.T.
Basically, Senator Reid is making excuses. The President can make backdoor appropriations, so why can’t they? I hear this all the time from my kids, "Why can’t I do it if my brother is? It’s not fair!" Give me a break, this is what our elected officials are reduced to? They now possess a play ground mentality when it comes to our money? Congress, simply put, is trying to mask this blatantly immoral and adult mischief with juvenile rebuffs.

It is way passed time for the Congress and the President to stop playing games with our futures. They have obviously proven they are not capable of being adults and continuously try and pander to the American voting block with excuses rather than full disclosure and accountability of their actions.

Yes there is more. President Bush set a cap on the budget at 932 billion dollars. Well wait till you hear this one.

In fact, though, Congress used budget gimmicks and loopholes to fudge the numbers. Meanwhile, Senators and representatives piled on the pork by earmarking billions to more than 11,300 of their pet projects. Result: Lawmakers approved a bill that actually puts the government more than $20 billion over budget. [3]

Then this,

Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid both recently dismissed a larger amount, $23 billion, as a “small difference” with the president.House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey(D-Wisc.)shrugged it off as “table scraps.” [3]

Table scraps eh? Roughly, half the worth of Warren Buffet or Bill Gates. This goes beyond partisan politics; this is about the accountability of the legislative and executive branches. If you are interested in a partisan slant, I highly recommend Mr. Sheppard’s article.

Coupling the childish mentality, described earlier, and the laissez-faire attitude towards this "small difference" amounts to a sad representation of the people we have sent to our legislative branch. This does not bode well for them. Is it any wonder Congress’ approval rating is in the toilet?

[1] New Media Journal

[2] Republican Study Committee Blog

[3] Heritage Foundation

Continue reading ...