Swampiness
[Short post today, my apologies.]
I read a story today in the Washington Post which deserves a lot more attention than it has so far gotten, and for that reason, I'm turning the bulk of this column over to an excerpt. This sort of thing truly enrages me, because it is institutionalized, legalized corruption at its finest. I'm beginning to think John McCain was right on the whole subject of earmarks -- just ban the practice altogether.
Washington, before it became a city, was a swamp. You can put fancy neoclassical buildings up everywhere, but it seems you can never get rid of the inherent swampiness of the town. Sigh.
House and Senate lawmakers have received nearly $2 million in campaign contributions this election cycle from organizations for which they had sponsored earmarks, according to a new report by two nonpartisan watchdogs.
Over half of the members of the House and Senate accepted money for the November elections from recipients of their earmarks, according to the report, released Thursday by the Center for Responsive Politics and Taxpayers for Common Sense. Thirteen senators and nine House members received more than $20,000 from companies and organizations that were beneficiaries of their earmarks.
"In too many cases campaign contributors are able to donate thousands of dollars and get millions of dollars back in earmarks," said Steve Ellis, vice president of the taxpayers' group. "This isn't altruism that is driving their behavior."
In total, lawmakers spent $15.9 billion on earmarks in the current fiscal year, only a fraction of which went to campaign contributors, according to the group. That figure is less than the $19.9 billion spent in fiscal 2009.
Earmarks, which direct spending to specific recipients, have become a political issue as the federal deficit has ballooned. Critics charge that the spending is directed to lawmakers' pet projects, bypassing competitive bidding and other fairness safeguards. Democratic leaders said this year that they will allow earmarks only for nonprofit organizations. Republican leaders said they would seek to ban all earmarks.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
I think the Republicans are going to be shock the Democrats as well. I don't know if you remember this but I said long ago that Democrats would be hurt for not passing health care sooner. Yes they will have some major losses but these loses will not be wins for Republican. This and 2012 are the year of the Independents and never elected.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss..
Change my left butt cheek...
What was I thinking??
Michale.....
Behind door #1 we have 16 chunks of pork, down from 20 last year. Behind door #2 we have 660 chunks of pork, and rising. Guess which everyone is worked up over.
Let me guess..
Door #1 is the GOP door..
Door #2 is the DP door...
:D
Michale.....
Door #1 hahaha
Michale the last time a Democrat was president we had money, eight years later we're broke. The Conservative lead Supreme court has allow corporations to donate looks like more room for earmarks.
Michale the last time a Democrat was president we had money,
That was simply because of the fluke of the Dot Coms. Please don't think that the Democrats deserve ANY credit for that...
Although, Al Gore DID create the Internet at that time, right?? :D
eight years later we're broke.
Yea, war tends to be expensive.
But you are correct.
The Democrats DO deserve credit for THAT...
The Conservative lead Supreme court has allow corporations to donate looks like more room for earmarks.
And the Democrats get on their knees every day to... ahem... er... thank that court for that decision.
If you are going to try to convince me that there is really any difference between the GOP and the DP as far as greed and money are concerned, give it up.
I am simply way too intelligent to swallow that line of felgercarb...
Michale.....
Chris,
I was kind of hoping for some examples of the most offensive earmarks....
Kevin
I was kind of hoping for some examples of the most offensive earmarks....
Seconded...
And I am certain you will be scrupulously fair about it as well..
As an aside, let me say that, silly as it sounds, I actually LIKE the site better with all the ads. No, I really do.. It makes the site seem more... professional.
Michale....
It just amazes me that our Congress can be bought for so little. $20k ... you've got to be kidding me. For a congressman in the greatest nation on earth? Ok, this truly is a sign we've become a 3rd world country :).
As for earmarks, I find it interesting that "earmarks" are getting so much attention lately. I wonder if "earmarks" are the new "entitlements" to use one of the GOPs favorite terms.
I personally think they use these terms to refer to any programs that they don't like.
To put things in a little bit of perspective ...
Earmarks 2010 - $15.9 billion
Military defense budget 2010 - $663.8 billion
Estimated cost of Iraq and Afghanistan wars - over $1 trillion
That means getting rid of earmarks entirely would be the same as trimming the defense budget by about 2.4%. Or, spending one less month at war. This year's defense budget is about 42 times bigger than "earmarks".
(Oh, I know Michale, "I hate the troops." or "I'm aiding the terrorists" or one of those other bumper-sticker slogans you like so much.)
Now I dislike misspent money as much as the next person, but why is it our biggest "earmark", the defense budget, never considered an earmark?
Why is it that the sacred cow of the military is never brought up when it comes to out of control spending?
We spend 7 times more than the number 2 country and more than the next 10 nations combined. Couldn't we maybe spend just 6 times more than the number 2 country and save $100 billion?
I'm also curious if anyone's seen a story on this in the corporate ... err, I'm sorry "liberal media".
-David
OK, can't answer everyone yet (I'm supposed to be posting FTP right now), but here's the link to the source data.
I was rushed yesterday, and didn't have time to download the database and comb through it, but you guys are welcome to do so.
-CW
Now I dislike misspent money as much as the next person, but why is it our biggest "earmark", the defense budget, never considered an earmark?
Why is it that the sacred cow of the military is never brought up when it comes to out of control spending?
Oh gee whiz, I dunno... Let's see if we can figure out this toughie...
How about, because it's the thing that keeps you and your loved ones alive and allows ya to bitch and moan about it in relative safety??
But hay.. When yer right, yer right...
Let's do away with the ENTIRE Defense budget.. Who needs all that anyways, right??
How long do you think this country would survive??
A month?? A week?? A day?? A frak'in hour??
Let me ask you something..
What is it that keeps the wolves at bay?? What is it that keeps the bad guys away from you and your family??
Our president's good looks?? His eloquence?? His ability to do absolutely nothing with practically everything??
Or is it that you don't think there are any wolves?? Any bad guys??
Well, I guess Sep 11th 2001 was just a bad dream, eh??
Jeeeze louise..
Michale.....
How long do you think this country would survive?
Thank you for proving my point, Michale.
"Sca-rrorism" is the best thing to ever happen to the defense industry. Scare the people like Michale to the point where he needs his own backyard bunker and then line up at the trough to suck $700 billion a year from the government.
And ok, there's a lot of recent discussion going on about the pentagon cutting $100 billion from their budget. So I give the Obama administration credit for being brave and looking to significantly reduce military spending.
Here's a no brainer ...
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/joint-strike-fighter-billion-boondoggle/story?id=10692337
This would be $3 billion in savings. That's 1/5 of the amount of all the total earmarks mentioned in the Post article.
Or do you disagree with the military saying they don't need this $3 billion "earmark"?
Cheers,
Michale
"Sca-rrorism" is the best thing to ever happen to the defense industry. Scare the people like Michale to the point where he needs his own backyard bunker and then line up at the trough to suck $700 billion a year from the government.
And thank you for proving MY point.
To chalk up the very real threats we face to "Sca-rrorism" is the epitome of either ignorance or a scorching case of Pollyanna-ism gone wild.
Is there waste?? Of course.. But to suggest doing away with the entire defense budget because of waste??
So, using your reasoning, we should do away with EVERY budget because EVERY budget has cases of waste...
All those social programs that you love so much epitomize "waste" and "fraud"..
OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!!!
Get rid of all social and welfare programs.
Good Call... :D
Michale.....
But to suggest doing away with the entire defense budget because of waste??
No one suggested doing away with the entire defense budget.
I'm suggesting scaling our defense budget to a more reasonable level.
If we could cut $100 billion from the military budget (a 15% or so reduction) as President Obama is asking for, this would save about 7 times more than eliminating all earmarks.
We would still spend 6 times more on the military than the next closest country. Still ridiculous, but a start.
Cheers
-David
p.s. No one said anything one way or the other about social programs so I'm not sure who or what you're talking about.
No one suggested doing away with the entire defense budget.
My apologies then.
When you called the entire Defense Budget an "earmark" and the thrust of this thread was getting rid of earmarks, I naturally assumed that you wanted to get rid of the Defense Budget..
My bust :D
I'm suggesting scaling our defense budget to a more reasonable level.
Do either of us have the expertise or inside knowledge to say it's not already at a reasonable level? :D
If we could cut $100 billion from the military budget (a 15% or so reduction) as President Obama is asking for, this would save about 7 times more than eliminating all earmarks.
What would you propose cutting??
Anything that is not a military necessity would kill millions of jobs...
p.s. No one said anything one way or the other about social programs so I'm not sure who or what you're talking about.
I was simply saying that if you were for eliminating the Defense Budget, then it would logically follow that the Social Welfare Budget should follow, no?? :D
Michale...
Anything that is not a military necessity would kill millions of jobs.
Now you're getting to the crux of the matter. I'd go even further to say that even cuts to non-necessary programs are going to cost jobs.
Take for example the secondary engine for the joint striker program. The military has one engine, built by Pratt and Whitney. But GE managed to lobby for a second one to be built to the tune of $3 billion. It's not even going to be used in any actual planes. It is a $3 billion redundant backup.
The military has said they don't need this. So who needs it? GE. (I happen to live in the town where GE Aircraft Engines is located and GE has argued it will cost jobs.)
So both our local congress-critters, one Republican and one Democrat, seem to have found something they have in common, GE.
And it's a pretty similar situation in many other districts so the congress-critters seem to have an implicit pact not to touch each others earmarks and military appropriations. You get your slice of the pie, I get mine. And this seems to go across parties.
This seems to me what Eisenhower was referring to when he coined the term "military industrial complex".
And this is why it always confuses me when people say we have a free market economy in America. Much of our technology market (the military, in particular) is nearly 100% dependent on government funding. (I may not have been in the military, but I have worked for several defense contractors including a small one named Lockheed Martin :)
It's not going to be easy to cut budget when this is going to affect jobs. This is why I admire President Obama for his effort and his directive to the Pentagon to look for ways to cut funds. He will be fighting the Congress-critters from both sides on this one.
Do either of us have the expertise or inside knowledge to say it's not already at a reasonable level?
I think it's safe to say that when we're spending more than the next 10 countries combined, that military spending is out of control.
And when it comes to cuts, I'd do what Obama is doing - go to the military and ask them to prioritize and look for ways to reduce budget.
I was simply saying that if you were for eliminating the Defense Budget, then it would logically follow that the Social Welfare Budget should follow, no?
Ah, now I see where you were going. If I were arguing for simply eliminating a program because there was some waste in it, then yes, the argument could be made to eliminate all programs where there is waste.
Cheers man, I'm off to enjoy dinner at a new place downtown!
-David
p.s. What's the news on the oil spill down in Florida? Keep us posted on what you hear, Michale.
We got tar balls on the Gulf side of FL.. I am on the "First Coast" which would be the north Atlantic side of FL. St Augustine, Nation's Oldest City. :D
If projections are accurate our beach is going to be toast. :( At the worst possible time. St Augustine is a big tourist town. While the majority of our tourists are here for the history, not having beaches is gonna hit us hard.
I would venture the say that, in all honesty, FL might be hit the hardest in all this, as FL has the most beach/miles and, (again if projections are accurate) there won't be bit of beach in FL that will escape the oil.
Enjoy yer meal.. :D
Michale.....
I would venture the say that, in all honesty, FL might be hit the hardest in all this, as FL has the most beach/miles and, (again if projections are accurate) there won't be bit of beach in FL that will escape the oil.
Yeah, I heard some people saying that potentially parts of the spill could make the Atlantic Coast. I haven't been able to find a good source to confirm this so take it as hearsay for now. Not sure how this possible, but I really hope it's not true.
Susie's SUBURBAN GUERILLA Blog (from the Banter link above) has a real good link for Oil Spill projections..
http://susiemadrak.com/?p=3060
This is, apparently, the Worst Case Scenario...
However, given all the luck we have had with this spill (all of it bad) it wouldn't surprise me if this comes to pass...
Michale.....