So much for Republican promises

Senate Republicans' ban on earmarks -- money included in a bill by a lawmaker to benefit a home-state project or interest -- was short-lived.

Only three days after GOP senators and senators-elect renounced earmarks, Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl, the No. 2 Senate Republican, got himself a whopping $200 million to settle an Arizona Indian tribe's water rights claim against the government.

Click to expand...

Wow. 3 days. Even I didn't expect the GOP to betray their own fake promises that quickly.

What Earmark Ban? GOP Leader Reaps $200M - CBS News

TOPEKA, Kan. – Although fixing the economy is the top priority, Republicans who won greater control of state governments in this month's election are considering how to pursue action on a range of social issues, including abortion, gun rights and even divorce laws.

Click to expand...

So much for less government.

Backlash feared as some in GOP push social issues - Yahoo! News

Not surprising. The GOP is as utterly worthless as the Dems. It's morbidly amusing though that there are still people out there who think one is better then the other.

Sounds like it's a bit more nuanced than your post implies.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ate-republicans-ban-earmarks-short-lived.html

Not really. Kyl basically turned $0 spending into $200 million just for his state. The GOP is going to pretend this isn't an earmark to keep their ban intact.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...an-earmarks-short-lived-2.html#post1059123128

obvious Child said:

Not really. Kyl basically turned $0 spending into $200 million just for his state. The GOP is going to pretend this isn't an earmark to keep their ban intact.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...an-earmarks-short-lived-2.html#post1059123128

Click to expand...

You're blaming the GOP for this?

Kyl's office insists the measure is not an earmark, and the House didn't deem it one when it considered a version earlier this year.

Click to expand...

The Democratic-controlled House considered the measure and determined that it wasn't an earmark. Not sure how you interpret that as proof that the GOP is pretending it's not an earmark for political reasons.

More:

The money for the 15,000-member White Mountain Apache Tribe was one of four tribal water rights claims totaling almost $570 million that was added to the $5 billion-plus bill. Black farmers will get about $1.2 billion to settle claims that the Agriculture Department's local offices discriminated against them in awarding loans and other aid. Another $3.4 billion goes to American Indians who say the Interior Department swindled them out of oil, gas and other royalties.

Click to expand...

This money is being allocated as a result of a claim brought against the federal government. Why is it not appropriate that the federal government fund the allocations?

Do you classify the other $5b being handed out to black and NA farmers as an "earmark"?

RightinNYC said:

You're blaming the GOP for this?

Click to expand...

The bill or Kyl's amendment? The Bill is Democrat's fault. The $200 million earmark is Kyl's. And it's the GOP's for not cracking down on a violation of their ban.

The Democratic-controlled House considered the measure and determined that it wasn't an earmark.

Click to expand...

And Reagan called ketchup a vegetable. Merely saying it is not when it fits the bill doesn't change the ugly fact it still is.

o you classify the other $5b being handed out to black and NA farmers as an "earmark"?

Click to expand...

Was it originally written into the bill and not inserted at the last minute like Kyl's spending? If it was written originally into the bill, it's not an earmark.

Furthermore, Kyl's spending is not for settling claims, but instead for specific spending projects. he basically tucked in state specific spending under settlement and said it's not an earmark.

obvious Child said:

The bill or Kyl's amendment? The Bill is Democrat's fault. The $200 million earmark is Kyl's. And it's the GOP's for not cracking down on a violation of their ban.

And Reagan called ketchup a vegetable. Merely saying it is not when it fits the bill doesn't change the ugly fact it still is.

Click to expand...

But it certainly does change the ugly claim that the Republicans are somehow being hypocrites or twisting the facts to get this declared a non-earmark for political purposes.

Was it originally written into the bill and not inserted at the last minute like Kyl's spending? If it was written originally into the bill, it's not an earmark.

Furthermore, Kyl's spending is not for settling claims, but instead for specific spending projects. he basically tucked in state specific spending under settlement and said it's not an earmark.

Click to expand...

Is the project simply a gratuitous expenditure, or is it designed to settle or offset some portion of the claims against the government?

What's the plan for earmarks that are actually beneficial projects? For example, DeMint has been opposing an earmark for dredging Charleston Harbor. Right now, the port can only service the bigger ships at high tide. If not dealt with, billions of dollars worth of business is going to go somewhere else.

As I understand it most Indian and Native American issues are direct towards the Federal government and they have most of responsibility for handling Native American issues including reservation issues.

Course its probably not that simple but thats how I understand it.

It is hard to argue with the “republicans are as worthless as democrats point. However since this topic was sort of addressed in a few other threads, I’ll just post my response from there.

How much did it save the taxpayers? There is pending legislation...and the overall bill was for...what was it...5.4 billion dollars, many of those dollars going to Indians and black farmers in democrat districts...so...was it ALL pork? Or just the 200 million going to Kyl's Indians in Az?

Come on people...if you arent just playing stupid partisan bull**** games...is it ALL pork or not? Did the Indians have a legitimate (actionable) lawsuit or not? I’m FULL ON WILLING to indict Sen Kyl for his 200 million in 'earmarks'...let’s just make sure we frogmarch all the democrat bastards out there for the remaining 5.2 billion in pork. Or was the money to the black farmers and Indians in those dem districts legit?
"The money for the 15,000-member White Mountain Apache Tribe was one of four tribal water rights claims totaling almost $570 million that was added to the $5 billion-plus bill. Black farmers will get about $1.2 billion to settle claims that the Agriculture Department's local offices discriminated against them in awarding loans and other aid. Another $3.4 billion goes to American Indians who say the Interior Department swindled them out of oil, gas and other royalties."

Sens. Max Baucus, D-Mont., and Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M.-black farmers-tribal royalty settlements. $370 million for projects in their states to implement water settlements.

Again...legit legislation or earmarks? If it is legit...you havent got a leg to stand on. If it is earmarks then lets throw every penny out...no exceptions.

Even when I was a republican I didn't get the anti-earmark issue with the 'I'm 100% anti'

Sure - some of it is butterfluff that's unnecessary and purely for vote-stoking. But some of it is for legitimate purposes and those things should be ENCOURAGED or at least accepted while the wasteful of selfish spending and taking should be DISCOURAGED.

Being 100% for or 100% against something that's a 50/50 issue is toxic and impossible to stick to.

Deuce said:

What's the plan for earmarks that are actually beneficial projects? For example, DeMint has been opposing an earmark for dredging Charleston Harbor. Right now, the port can only service the bigger ships at high tide. If not dealt with, billions of dollars worth of business is going to go somewhere else.

Click to expand...

How about the companies that are operating at those dock facilites pay to dredge the harbor?

apdst said:

How about the companies that are operating at those dock facilites pay to dredge the harbor?

Click to expand...

Because its a public good.

Wiseone said:

Because its a public good.

Click to expand...

The companies operating in that harbor are making millions. C'mon, Wise! Where'd your Libbo streak go? These outfits are making millions and stand to make millions more, if the harbor remains open. I think it's the least they can do, to throw in a few million--collectively--to insure the harbor stays usable.

Private companies can't cough a few bucks for themselves and in turn, "the public good"?

apdst said:

The companies operating in that harbor are making millions. C'mon, Wise! Where'd your Libbo streak go? These outfits are making millions and stand to make millions more, if the harbor remains open. I think it's the least they can do, to throw in a few million--collectively--to insure the harbor stays usable.

Click to expand...

They should pay for it through taxes, and the government being the owner of the that harbor should be responsible for the repairs and/or improvements. Since when do you support the owner of something not being responsible for it?

apdst said:

The companies operating in that harbor are making millions. C'mon, Wise! Where'd your Libbo streak go? These outfits are making millions and stand to make millions more, if the harbor remains open. I think it's the least they can do, to throw in a few million--collectively--to insure the harbor stays usable.

Private companies can't cough a few bucks for themselves and in turn, "the public good"?

Click to expand...

depending on the costs they would most likely go to some other harbour.

Depending on how you felt about keeping that one open would determine your opinion about government funds being used to dredge it

Lord Tammerlain said:

depending on the costs they would most likely go to some other harbour.

Depending on how you felt about keeping that one open would determine your opinion about government funds being used to dredge it

Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe not. There are alot of logistical issues involved in relocating to another harbor, issues that may not be able to be addressed.

Pesonally, I think the companies that operate out of Charleston Harbor should dredge their own damn harbor and not use my tax money to do it.

If that went for any harbor, then relocating would be for naught. Eh?

Wiseone said:

They should pay for it through taxes, and the government being the owner of the that harbor should be responsible for the repairs and/or improvements. Since when do you support the owner of something not being responsible for it?

Click to expand...

I'm less concerned with who owns the harbor, than I am with whose making millions from the harbor being kept passable.

Why does it seem that the Libbos are opposed to these multi-million dollar companies anty'ing up?

We're arguing the same thing. Either way, directly or indirectly, its the corporations paying for whatever upgrade the government wants(since they are the only decision makers in our models).

Wiseone said:

We're arguing the same thing. Either way, directly or indirectly, its the corporations paying for whatever upgrade the government wants(since they are the only decision makers in our models).

Click to expand...

No, it's not the same thing. If tax money is used to dredge the harbor, theneveryone is paying, so these companies can keep paying millions. The companies in Charleston Harbor make millions more and don't have to any up a dime more than anyone else.

The Libbos oughta be nuttin' up, over that little scenario.

Deuce said:

What's the plan for earmarks that are actually beneficial projects? For example, DeMint has been opposing an earmark for dredging Charleston Harbor. Right now, the port can only service the bigger ships at high tide. If not dealt with, billions of dollars worth of business is going to go somewhere else.

Click to expand...

Aunt Spiker said:

Even when I was a republican I didn't get the anti-earmark issue with the 'I'm 100% anti'

Sure - some of it is butterfluff that's unnecessary and purely for vote-stoking. But some of it is for legitimate purposes and those things should be ENCOURAGED or at least accepted while the wasteful of selfish spending and taking should be DISCOURAGED.

Being 100% for or 100% against something that's a 50/50 issue is toxic and impossible to stick to.

Click to expand...

If it's something that is legitimately important and serves an important federal need, then I don't see why it can't be voted on in its own bill or as part of a larger bill that it belongs to and is discussed openly in.

My opposition to the earmarking process doesn't come from the fact that I think all the spending is worthless, but from the way in which these earmarks are enacted, with little or no debate and on the backs of unrelated bills. That's why I'm not particularly thrilled with the act in the OP, even if it isn't technically an earmark.

Right - don't you like your Christmas tree to me handsomely decorated

I agree with you on that note - I'd prefer they go through the proper ringer with each monetary request and run the gauntlet like everything else, as well.