Bid to ban earmarks falls short in Senate

An effort by Senate Republicans to temporarily ban earmarks died on the Senate floor Tuesday, but it was far from the last word on the controversial practice.

A three-year moratorium on lawmaker-directed funds for pet projects back home was proposed as an amendment to a food safety bill. The bill passed, but the amendment failed to gain the 67 votes — two-thirds of the Senate — that were required under a procedural hurdle. The proposal failed with 39 yes votes and 56 opposed.

Click to expand...

And here is a part so hilarious that you will die laughing:

Earmarks, said Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), the Senate assistant majority leader, allow him "to direct federal dollars into projects critically important to our state and its future."

Durbin argued that reforms had made the process more transparent and less likely to be abused.

Click to expand...

Ah, yes, that's right. If a thief breaks into your house during the day, instead of in the middle of the night, and steals your stuff right in front of you, instead of sneaking around, he should not be charged with a crime, because his process for stealing from you was transparent, right?

I make this analogy because, whether transparent or hidden, earmarks in general are just a process for theft from the taxpayers of this country. True, some earmarks can be good, but the process has been abused to the point where it has to go. I repeat, earmarks must go. I fully support the GOP on this. Get the damn pigs (Congress) out of the damn trough.

Article is here.

Agreed.

If your "amendment" (earmark) isn't good enough to stand on its own and be incorporated into a bill suitable for the purpose of the appropriation, i.e., tacking on millions of dollars for sewage repair in a small town ontp a bill that deals with pollution clean, doesn't fly with me. You want that pet project fixed, bring the matter up in the appropriate bill.

I don't really have a problem with earmarks. After after you consider what a tiny portion of the budget they occupy and how much of that tiny percent serves a legitimate purpose, you realize how unworthy the issue is of all the attention it garners, and that Congress has bigger fish to fry.

Grimjack19 said:

I don't really have a problem with earmarks. After after you consider what a tiny portion of the budget they occupy and how much of that tiny percent serves a legitimate purpose, you realize how unworthy the issue is of all the attention it garners, and that Congress has bigger fish to fry.

Click to expand...

With our deficit, everything, whether big or small, should be on the the cutting table.

danarhea said:

With our deficit, everything, whether big or small, should be on the the cutting table.

Click to expand...

That's not the issue, my point is that if our representatives are serious about fixing the deficit they should be focusing on things that will make a substantive impact on it, not on trivialities.

I suspect that is part of the reason why earmark reform is so eagerly taken up by members of Congress, it gives people the impression that they are working to fix the deficit yet brings little risk of upsetting their constituencies the way talk of something big like entitlement cuts might.

I believe the GOP platform to extend the Bush tax cuts is going to solve the deficit.

Grimjack19 said:

That's not the issue, my point is that if our representatives are serious about fixing the deficit they should be focusing on things that will make a substantive impact on it, not on trivialities.

Click to expand...

I see nothing wrong with removing trivialities from the table in order to focus on the larger issues. I doubt the public would react to the eradication of earmarks with some sort of disdain... or massive disapproval to the tune of "get something real done!".

independent_thinker2002 said:

I believe the GOP platform to extend the Bush tax cuts is going to solve the deficit.

Click to expand...

Care to explain how the tax cuts being extended for all but the top 2% will magically solve the deficit but somehow the top 2% having it extended won't, like the Democratic Party is pushing?

"Its too bad of an economy to take money out of peoples hands. They need that money to spend. Um...except for these people, if we give them money to spend it will destroy us, so we need to take theirs. Yeah, they're um...different."

danarhea said:

And here is a part so hilarious that you will die laughing:



Ah, yes, that's right. If a thief breaks into your house during the day, instead of in the middle of the night, and steals your stuff right in front of you, instead of sneaking around, he should not be charged with a crime, because his process for stealing from you was transparent, right?

I make this analogy because, whether transparent or hidden, earmarks in general are just a process for theft from the taxpayers of this country. True, some earmarks can be good, but the process has been abused to the point where it has to go. I repeat, earmarks must go. I fully support the GOP on this. Get the damn pigs (Congress) out of the damn trough.

Article is here.

Click to expand...

This is why voter initiatives on a federal level would be a good. Politicians in general can not be trusted to do the right thing.

Grimjack19 said:

I don't really have a problem with earmarks. After after you consider what a tiny portion of the budget they occupy and how much of that tiny percent serves a legitimate purpose, you realize how unworthy the issue is of all the attention it garners, and that Congress has bigger fish to fry.

Click to expand...

That's exactly the attitude that blocks reform.

What difference does it make how tiny the percentage is? It needs to stop.

Zyphlin said:

Care to explain how the tax cuts being extended for all but the top 2% will magically solve the deficit but somehow the top 2% having it extended won't, like the Democratic Party is pushing?

Click to expand...

Care to show me where the Dems have said that ending Bush's tax policy would solve the deficit? At the most, there have been claims that it will help solve the deficit.

The GOP is so concerned about the 3 trillion dollars Obama has added to the deficit yet they want to stick to the tax plan that had to end because it had been deemed to add to the deficit. You see, this is what they talked about in their press conference after their meeting with Obama yesterday. Obama's plan may be bad, but the GOP's is worse.

Zyphlin said:

"Its too bad of an economy to take money out of peoples hands. They need that money to spend. Um...except for these people, if we give them money to spend it will destroy us, so we need to take theirs. Yeah, they're um...different."

Click to expand...

If the top tax rate was 90% or even 71% then I would find credence in this class warfare angle. Obama's plan isn't going to hurt the wealthy. It won't put them in the poorhouse. They won't have to live and dine amongst the commoners. They will still be wealthy.

Grimjack19 said:

I don't really have a problem with earmarks. After after you consider what a tiny portion of the budget they occupy and how much of that tiny percent serves a legitimate purpose, you realize how unworthy the issue is of all the attention it garners, and that Congress has bigger fish to fry.

Click to expand...

My problem is not with the amount of money. I've watched enough C-Span to see how earmarks are used to buy votes for particular bills. That's why they need to go, in my opinion.
Earmarks end up costing tax payers more than the price of the earmarks by themselves. There has to be a better way to get money to the states for ligitamate projects.

Grimjack19 said:

That's not the issue, my point is that if our representatives are serious about fixing the deficit they should be focusing on things that will make a substantive impact on it, not on trivialities. I suspect that is part of the reason why earmark reform is so eagerly taken up by members of Congress, it gives people the impression that they are working to fix the deficit yet brings little risk of upsetting their constituencies the way talk of something big like entitlement cuts might.

Click to expand...

Doing away with earmarks is one thing Republican constituents have asked for. They are listening for a change. (well most of them are)

Zyphlin said:

Care to explain how the tax cuts being extended for all but the top 2% will magically solve the deficit but somehow the top 2% having it extended won't, like the Democratic Party is pushing?

"Its too bad of an economy to take money out of peoples hands. They need that money to spend. Um...except for these people, if we give them money to spend it will destroy us, so we need to take theirs. Yeah, they're um...different."

Click to expand...

Well, I will once you can explain where you got the idea that anybody thought any such thing.

independent_thinker2002 said:

Care to show me where the Dems have said that ending Bush's tax policy would solve the deficit? At the most, there have been claims that it will help solve the deficit.

Click to expand...

Where have the GOP said extending the Bush Tax cuts alone will solve the deficit?

The GOP is so concerned about the 3 trillion dollars Obama has added to the deficit yet they want to stick to the tax plan that had to end because it had been deemed to add to the deficit. You see, this is what they talked about in their press conference after their meeting with Obama yesterday. Obama's plan may be bad, but the GOP's is worse.

Click to expand...

Gotcha, so you're saying you disagree with the Democrats and Obama's plans and that the Bush Tax Cuts as a whole should be revoked?

If the top tax rate was 90% or even 71% then I would find credence in this class warfare angle. Obama's plan isn't going to hurt the wealthy. It won't put them in the poorhouse. They won't have to live and dine amongst the commoners. They will still be wealthy.

Click to expand...

Sorry IT, you don't get to decide what "hurts" the wealthy or not. Its not your call to make nor should it be the government. When you're saying that every other class of people should keep low taxes but this TINY portion of the population should have theirs significantly raised because "they can handle it" because "They're rich" with constant implications that they don't deserve it or that its not "fair" then you're most certainly playing the class warfare angle.

Zyphlin said:

Where have the GOP said extending the Bush Tax cuts alone will solve the deficit?

Click to expand...

They haven't. They complain about the deficit and then turn around and want to add to it.

Zyphlin said:

Gotcha, so you're saying you disagree with the Democrats and Obama's plans and that the Bush Tax Cuts as a whole should be revoked?

Click to expand...

Not really, I can see how my comment comes across that way. In general, I support the middle class tax break. I don't disagree with tax relief for those who are in need.

Zyphlin said:

Sorry IT, you don't get to decide what "hurts" the wealthy or not. Its not your call to make nor should it be the government. When you're saying that every other class of people should keep low taxes but this TINY portion of the population should have theirs significantly raised because "they can handle it" because "They're rich" with constant implications that they don't deserve it or that its not "fair" then you're most certainly playing the class warfare angle.

Click to expand...

"Constant implications that they don't deserve it"? Sorry, you have me confused with someone else. Taxes cuts/hikes aren't a reward/punishment system. Taxes are necessary. If there is a segment of our population that would be least affected by a tax hike I think we all know which 2% that is. As far as "fair" goes, anything short of a flat tax is "unfair". I guess the GOP's plan is "unfair" too as it is still a progressive tax system.

independent_thinker2002 said:

They haven't. They complain about the deficit and then turn around and want to add to it.

Click to expand...

Ah, so you don't like people that complain about the deficit then suggest something that you feel will raise the deficit.

Not really, I can see how my comment comes across that way. In general, I support the middle class tax break. I don't disagree with tax relief for those who are in need.

Click to expand...

Huwahhhh? Wait, so I take it YOU don't care about the deficit since you turn around and want to add to it?

"Constant implications that they don't deserve it"? Sorry, you have me confused with someone else. Taxes cuts/hikes aren't a reward/punishment system. Taxes are necessary. If there is a segment of our population that would be least affected by a tax hike I think we all know which 2% that is. As far as "fair" goes, anything short of a flat tax is "unfair". I guess the GOP's plan is "unfair" too as it is still a progressive tax system.

Click to expand...

Where was I talking about you specifically? My class warfare comment was aimed at the left in general in this country, which repeatedly implies that somehow the rich don't deserve to have that wealth in various ways. Taxes for necessary things are necessary. Taxes for unnecessary luxury things is the government deeming their judgement on what to do with your money better than your judgement and therefore taking it from you. Taxes for the sake of continuing to add MORE of these unnecessary luxury items is short of theft.

I've stated on this board my support for an increase in taxes...the moment its tied DIRECTLY with paying down the debt and less spending. I don't want to hear this hogwash about needing it due to deficits or paying down the debt or to cover spending when we've been given zero reasons to assume this isn't just going to give them cover and reason to spend even MORE than before.

Zyphlin said:

Ah, so you don't like people that complain about the deficit then suggest something that you feel will raise the deficit.

Click to expand...

Yes, I know Obama has done this too. :lol:

The bottom line is that people need relief. There is a deficit problem that runs counter to that. There isn't a "feeling" the Bush tax cuts raise the deficit. It's a fact. If the top two percent pay 50% of the taxes, will the higher rate offset the cut in the other 50% of taxes collected? It's an honest question i don't know the answer to.

Zyphlin said:

Huwahhhh? Wait, so I take it YOU don't care about the deficit since you turn around and want to add to it?

Click to expand...

If there are two options and they are add X amount and add 1.5X amount, the lesser of two evils is the obvious choice for me.

Zyphlin said:

Where was I talking about you specifically? My class warfare comment was aimed at the left in general in this country, which repeatedly implies that somehow the rich don't deserve to have that wealth in various ways. Taxes for necessary things are necessary. Taxes for unnecessary luxury things is the government deeming their judgement on what to do with your money better than your judgement and therefore taking it from you. Taxes for the sake of continuing to add MORE of these unnecessary luxury items is short of theft.

I've stated on this board my support for an increase in taxes...the moment its tied DIRECTLY with paying down the debt and less spending. I don't want to hear this hogwash about needing it due to deficits or paying down the debt or to cover spending when we've been given zero reasons to assume this isn't just going to give them cover and reason to spend even MORE than before.

Click to expand...

That was the point with my original sarcastic comment. Spending is an issue. The GOP leadership seems to be focused on tax cuts, not spending.