• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama backs pet projects and signs spending bill

Every single person asking for an earmark believes that their particular project is worthwhile. The problem isn't that they aren't necessarily worthwhile, its that the federal government shouldn't be lumping your projects in with the budget and then holding the operations of the country hostage unless they're all voted up or down together.
I agree. But at this moment in time, that's how it works. I don't like it. Why don't you and I come up with a plan to fix it and see how far we get?

If your projects are as great as they seem,
They are.
they should be able to stand on their own merit.
They do, in the current process as prescribed by government.

The fact that you like them doesn't justify the earmark process.
Well I never said they did. But the earmark process is the mechanism for obtaining the needed funds. The COPS Technology Program is funded almost entirely by the earmark process.

So what do you and I do RNYC?
 
Aren't you even a little curious about the pet projects? That is what everyone has been up in arms about afterall.
Look, I may be curious, but I've been immersed in this process for the last five years. The "bridge to nowhere" was vehemently and successfully defended when scrutinized. I may not like it, but I have to work in it. I'm just not beating myself over the head yelling to draw attention to the obvious. I am the first to scream that we need more scrutiny in the process and I'll tell you why. My projects take second, third, and fourth seat every damned year to things I believe to be crap. I'm trying to improve public safety and I'm competing with things like new water taxi projects, renovating down town mainstreet, and ATV courses. My projects are very transparent and easily defensible. Very few would argue about better voice and data communications between the various public safety entities, or implementation of better law enforcement information sharing infrastructure.

Yes, the man I voted for is thus far a big turd sandwich. No doubt about it. I still hold out hope but so far he has shown that he either doesn't have the balls to take a stand or is 100% in agreement with the crape that has been passed in Congress.
I don't know who you voted for so I'm not quite sure what to make of this. You accused me of basically being too mesmerized by Obama to be troubled with the problematic spending of Congress. I was slightly offended by that since that isn't even remotely the case. I know all to well about the earmark system and I'm telling you there are much bigger things to worry about in terms of what Congress is doing. Homestate earmarks are between 1 and 2 percent of the overall budget. And of that 1 to 2 percent, many very good projects reside.

But I'll hold my breath longer and give him a chance... he still has 4 years left.
Okay.

how about you just one?
Ummm...huh?
 
Last edited:
I agree. But at this moment in time, that's how it works. I don't like it. Why don't you and I come up with a plan to fix it and see how far we get?

It's not like it's that complex. Just have these things voted on separately. We've done it that way for decades and the world didn't end.

Well I never said they did. But the earmark process is the mechanism for obtaining the needed funds. The COPS Technology Program is funded almost entirely by the earmark process.

If it's that great, it should be funded either way.

So what do you and I do RNYC?

Say that this is bull****? Vote for people who won't do this? Hold people to promises not to do this? Oppose it uniformly, rather than supporting it when it's something that each of us individually might think is cool?
 
It's not like it's that complex. Just have these things voted on separately. We've done it that way for decades and the world didn't end.
Do you know how many votes that would take? It's not feasible. That's why we have huge spending bills with little pork projects hidden in them in the first place. If you cut the number of home state earmarks to a quarter of what it is that would mean Congress would have to vote on 2,000 separate projects, on top of EVERYTHING else they have to vote on. Couldn't be done in a year and still have government function. Not unless they work twelve hour days and don't take vacations. I'd rather they work on fixing things that constitue more than 1 to 2% of the burden to the budget...like Social Security, Medicare, Defense, and Immigration.

If it's that great, it should be funded either way.
I think you're right, it should be.


Say that this is bull****? Vote for people who won't do this? Hold people to promises not to do this? Oppose it uniformly, rather than supporting it when it's something that each of us individually might think is cool?
Okay so where do we start? I thought we did this at the polls but I'm game for any other ideas that are out there.
 
Last edited:
Do you know how many votes that would take? It's not feasible. That's why we have huge spending bills with little pork projects hidden in them in the first place. If you cut the number of home state earmarks to a quarter of what it is that would mean Congress would have to vote on 2,000 separate projects, on top of EVERYTHING else they have to vote on. Couldn't be done in a year and still have government function. Not unless they work twelve hour days and don't take vacations. I'd rather they work on fixing things that constitue more than 1 to 2% of the burden to the budget...like Social Security, Medicare, Defense, and Immigration.

How on earth could we ever function without so many earmarks?

fed-rev-spend-2008-boc-C5-FY-2008-Had-the-Second-Highest.gif


I don't remember Congress working 12 hour days back in 96, and yet they had less than 10% of the number of earmarks we have now. There's absolutely no practical reason why we can't get back to those numbers, at a minimum.


Okay so where do we start? I thought we did this at the polls but I'm game for any other ideas that are out there.

Step 1: Display your displeasure in a slightly more angry tone than this:

lerxt said:
I'm glad he signed it. Some very good national security and state and local public safety projects are going to get done. I'm just tickled!

To someone who isn't aware of your burning desire to fix this problem, that could almost be seen as saying that you're happy with the process. ;)
 
How on earth could we ever function without so many earmarks?

fed-rev-spend-2008-boc-C5-FY-2008-Had-the-Second-Highest.gif


I don't remember Congress working 12 hour days back in 96, and yet they had less than 10% of the number of earmarks we have now. There's absolutely no practical reason why we can't get back to those numbers, at a minimum.
You didn't get what I was saying. I was talking about voting on each and every earmark like you suggested. I didn't say Congress couldn't function without earmarks. I said they couldn't function if they voted on every single earmark.

You said... said:
It's not like it's that complex. Just have these things voted on separately. We've done it that way for decades and the world didn't end.

Are you talking about setting home state earmarks aside from the regular budget? If so I misunderstood you. I could see that as feasible for freeing up the regular budget. However if you are suggesting voting on these projects individually, it simply couldn't be done...even with 950 separate projects. Not intelligently anyway. Individual home state earmarks haven't been voted on separately "for decades." Can you clarify your position please?

Step 1: Display your displeasure in a slightly more angry tone than this:
Why get so angry over around 2% of the budget? I'm a bit more concerned, as I said earlier, with the fact that Social Security, Medicare, Defense, and Immigration are in such a mess. I'd really like them to fix those first.

To someone who isn't aware of your burning desire to fix this problem, that could almost be seen as saying that you're happy with the process. ;)
I'm gonna guess you didn't catch my sarcasm? I'm going to label myself as a political realist here and ask you why you are so caught up on such a small piece of the problem?
 
Last edited:
You didn't get what I was saying. I was talking about voting on each and every earmark like you suggested. I didn't say Congress couldn't function without earmarks. I said they couldn't function if they voted on every single earmark.

1) I'm not saying they need to vote on each provision individually, I'm saying that earmarks should stand on their own outside of the omnibus budgeting package. If Congress wants to vote on a police projects bill that lumps together 30 projects, I couldn't care less. It's a problem when they're forced to vote yes on the police projects simply because they want to avoid the entire government shutting down because the police projects are tied to the omnibus bill.

2) In actuality, they could survive just fine while voting on every single earmark individually. In 1980, there was 62 earmarks. There's no appreciable reason why the need for earmarks has increased dramatically since then. I think you'd have to agree that congress could fit 62 extra voice votes in per year.

Are you talking about setting home state earmarks aside from the regular budget? If so I misunderstood you. I could see that as feasible for freeing up the regular budget. However if you are suggesting voting on these projects individually, it simply couldn't be done...even with 950 separate projects. Not intelligently anyway. Individual home state earmarks haven't been voted on separately "for decades." Can you clarify your position please?

Didn't read this until I typed out the above. :lol: See that.

Why get so angry over around 2% of the budget? I'm a bit more concerned, as I said earlier, with the fact that Social Security, Medicare, Defense, and Immigration are in such a mess. I'd really like them to fix those first.

I'm gonna guess you didn't catch my sarcasm? I'm going to label myself as a political realist here and ask you why you are so caught up on such a small piece of the problem?

This line irritates me, and you hear it more and more now which I think is a shame. $7b/year is a lot of ****ing money. I don't give a **** that it's "only" 2% of the budget. It's $7b that should be spend on the right things, not on whatever a 90 year old Senator unilaterally feels like sending it to without scrutiny.

Also, you're setting up a false dichotomy - it's not "fix Medicare or fix earmarks." Earmarks could be fixed instantly. If Obama told Congress that he would absolutely not sign a bill that had any earmarks, we'd see a bill without earmarks. The reason he doesn't do it is because he'd pay a political price. Simple enough.

And let's just be clear - you don't have a problem with earmarking because you profit from it. That's fine, but you have to understand that that colors the way I view your stance on the issue.
 
1) I'm not saying they need to vote on each provision individually, I'm saying that earmarks should stand on their own outside of the omnibus budgeting package. If Congress wants to vote on a police projects bill that lumps together 30 projects, I couldn't care less. It's a problem when they're forced to vote yes on the police projects simply because they want to avoid the entire government shutting down because the police projects are tied to the omnibus bill.
Okay I can agree with this.

2) In actuality, they could survive just fine while voting on every single earmark individually. In 1980, there was 62 earmarks. There's no appreciable reason why the need for earmarks has increased dramatically since then. I think you'd have to agree that congress could fit 62 extra voice votes in per year.
Sure, but do you know why there were so few earmarks on many of the past bills? Bundled amendments. Members would offer amendments that bundled 10, 20, 50 project into one amendment. Now they have do 1 project per amendment. That along with earmark certification was part of the "earmark reform" Congress was touting.


Didn't read this until I typed out the above. :lol: See that.

;)

This line irritates me, and you hear it more and more now which I think is a shame. $7b/year is a lot of ****ing money. I don't give a **** that it's "only" 2% of the budget. It's $7b that should be spend on the right things, not on whatever a 90 year old Senator unilaterally feels like sending it to without scrutiny.
Well I'm just not as irritated by it because I know that within that 7 billion dollars there are many good projects. "Right things" you might say. It's not 7 billion wasted on meaningless "pet projects."

Also, you're setting up a false dichotomy - it's not "fix Medicare or fix earmarks." Earmarks could be fixed instantly. If Obama told Congress that he would absolutely not sign a bill that had any earmarks, we'd see a bill without earmarks. The reason he doesn't do it is because he'd pay a political price. Simple enough.
No I'm not. I'm saying that I see a whole lot of effort on this board and in the media to ramp up the budgetary attack on earmarks, and almost nothing on Social Security, Medicare, Defense, or Immigration. I'm simply not of the opinion that they need to spend 100 days a year in discussions and taking votes on around 2% of the budget. It's a reaction to what I thought your suggestion was about voting on individual home state earmarks.

I am curious why there is such activity here but nobody is talking about the budgetary impact of the other programs and Congress' poor performance there.

And let's just be clear - you don't have a problem with earmarking because you profit from it.
And let's be really clear. I do make a living through it, but not my entire living. And if the program for securing the money for these initiatives changes, so will my business practices. No big deal to me. But I don't share your same level of concern for other reasons as well, you simply don't find my reasons acceptable. You are really fired up, as are some others on here. I wish the best of luck in your endeavors to really, really reform the earmark process. I don't have a problem with the earmark process, I have a problem with those who abuse it and damage the public trust with it by funding worthless projects in return for campaign contributions and votes.

That's fine, but you have to understand that that colors the way I view your stance on the issue.
Okay.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom