View Full Version : Earmarking the War Machine
Taco John
07-27-2007, 05:34 AM
Earmarking the war machine
By Derrick Z. Jackson | July 21, 2007
ONCE AGAIN, the railing of Senate Democrats did not matter on Iraq.
"This is George Bush's war," Hillary Clinton said. "He is responsible for this war. He started the war. He mismanaged the war. He escalated the war. And he refuses to end the war."
Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts said, "After more than four years of such smoke and mirrors, Congress and the American people have lost faith in the president's competence in managing the war."
Carl Levin of Michigan, the Armed Services Committee chairman who is cosponsoring a combat-troop pullout deadline with Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, said, "What we're not comfortable with is the huge chaos which exists in Iraq right now . . . which we're trying to bring to an end by changing the course."
Not only did the Senate Democrats fail again this week to advance proposals for a pullout, they show in much broader ways that they have not changed course at all. They may want to end the war bungled by Republicans, but they refuse to end the escalation of the American war machine.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said the Democrats would "drain the swamp" of Republican corruption and "break the link between lobbyists and legislation." But the Globe recently reported that Kennedy slid $100 million into the 2008 defense authorization bill for a General Electric fighter engine that the Air Force said it did not need.
It gets worse in a defense budget that is zooming to $648.8 billion. The nonpartisan budget watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense last month analyzed 309 Senate defense earmarks. Four of the top five "earmarkers" were not Republican hawks but centrist and liberal Democrats.
Levin led the way with 44 earmarks. Clinton was second with 26. Reed was fourth with 23, one behind Republican John Warner of Virginia. In fifth place was Charles Schumer of New York with 21. When asked if she saw any change in defense earmark behavior since the Democrats took back the House and the Senate, senior analyst Laura Peterson of the Taxpayers for Common Sense said over the telephone, "No."
More proof the swamp is still full is the fact that only four of the top 10 senators in defense campaign contributions in the 2006 election cycle were Republicans. According to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, Democrats Kennedy, Clinton, Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, Dianne Feinstein of California, Bill Nelson of Florida, and Democrat-turned-independent Joe Lieberman of Connecticut collected 60 percent of the $1.4 million the industry lavished among the top 10.
Democrats say defense contracting is not about war but about jobs in their states (and of course votes). This no longer washes when bringing home the bacon fries the rest of the world. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute last year reported that the United States is now responsible for just under half of the entire planet's trillion-dollar military spending. No other nation accounts for more than 5 percent of the world's military spending.
The Stockholm report said the United States "is the principal determinant of the current world trend." With that, it is no surprise that the United States accounted for 80 percent of the increase in global military expenditures in 2005. The United States is also roughly tied with Russia in exporting arms to the rest of the world, together accounting for 60 percent of the total.
The World Policy Institute, an independent arms proliferation watchdog group, reported in 2005 that the United States transferred arms to 18 of the 25 countries in active conflicts. It also reported that 20 of the 25 nations that received arms from the United States in 2003 were classified as undemocratic or as having a poor human rights record by our own State Department.
Have you heard the Democrats leap up in unison to end this madness? They know they are not just funding better body armor or prosthetics for our soldiers. They know they fund the gear that makes prosthetics necessary.
This week, Kennedy reacted to Bush's progress report on Iraq by saying in a statement, "It's wrong to keep pouring more and more lives into the endless black hole of a failed policy. It's time to say 'enough.' "
When Kennedy and the Democrats say the same thing about defense earmarks, arms proliferation, and lives lost in black holes outside of Iraq, we will know the swamp is truly being drained.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/07/21/earmarking_the_war_machine/
defenseman
07-27-2007, 08:58 AM
Earmarking the war machine
By Derrick Z. Jackson | July 21, 2007
ONCE AGAIN, the railing of Senate Democrats did not matter on Iraq.
"This is George Bush's war," Hillary Clinton said. "He is responsible for this war. He started the war. He mismanaged the war. He escalated the war. And he refuses to end the war."
Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts said, "After more than four years of such smoke and mirrors, Congress and the American people have lost faith in the president's competence in managing the war."
Carl Levin of Michigan, the Armed Services Committee chairman who is cosponsoring a combat-troop pullout deadline with Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, said, "What we're not comfortable with is the huge chaos which exists in Iraq right now . . . which we're trying to bring to an end by changing the course."
Not only did the Senate Democrats fail again this week to advance proposals for a pullout, they show in much broader ways that they have not changed course at all. They may want to end the war bungled by Republicans, but they refuse to end the escalation of the American war machine.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said the Democrats would "drain the swamp" of Republican corruption and "break the link between lobbyists and legislation." But the Globe recently reported that Kennedy slid $100 million into the 2008 defense authorization bill for a General Electric fighter engine that the Air Force said it did not need.
It gets worse in a defense budget that is zooming to $648.8 billion. The nonpartisan budget watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense last month analyzed 309 Senate defense earmarks. Four of the top five "earmarkers" were not Republican hawks but centrist and liberal Democrats.
Levin led the way with 44 earmarks. Clinton was second with 26. Reed was fourth with 23, one behind Republican John Warner of Virginia. In fifth place was Charles Schumer of New York with 21. When asked if she saw any change in defense earmark behavior since the Democrats took back the House and the Senate, senior analyst Laura Peterson of the Taxpayers for Common Sense said over the telephone, "No."
More proof the swamp is still full is the fact that only four of the top 10 senators in defense campaign contributions in the 2006 election cycle were Republicans. According to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, Democrats Kennedy, Clinton, Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, Dianne Feinstein of California, Bill Nelson of Florida, and Democrat-turned-independent Joe Lieberman of Connecticut collected 60 percent of the $1.4 million the industry lavished among the top 10.
Democrats say defense contracting is not about war but about jobs in their states (and of course votes). This no longer washes when bringing home the bacon fries the rest of the world. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute last year reported that the United States is now responsible for just under half of the entire planet's trillion-dollar military spending. No other nation accounts for more than 5 percent of the world's military spending.
The Stockholm report said the United States "is the principal determinant of the current world trend." With that, it is no surprise that the United States accounted for 80 percent of the increase in global military expenditures in 2005. The United States is also roughly tied with Russia in exporting arms to the rest of the world, together accounting for 60 percent of the total.
The World Policy Institute, an independent arms proliferation watchdog group, reported in 2005 that the United States transferred arms to 18 of the 25 countries in active conflicts. It also reported that 20 of the 25 nations that received arms from the United States in 2003 were classified as undemocratic or as having a poor human rights record by our own State Department.
Have you heard the Democrats leap up in unison to end this madness? They know they are not just funding better body armor or prosthetics for our soldiers. They know they fund the gear that makes prosthetics necessary.
This week, Kennedy reacted to Bush's progress report on Iraq by saying in a statement, "It's wrong to keep pouring more and more lives into the endless black hole of a failed policy. It's time to say 'enough.' "
When Kennedy and the Democrats say the same thing about defense earmarks, arms proliferation, and lives lost in black holes outside of Iraq, we will know the swamp is truly being drained.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/07/21/earmarking_the_war_machine/
Nice article TJ. Funny how the dems said they'd end the war, and in fact, they continue to feed the war machine. Gotta love it. Of course, you don't hear too much about this now do ya. The pork has got to stop, on both sides of the aisle..dman
Crushaholic
07-27-2007, 04:40 PM
This article should be brought up every time a Democrat criticizes Bush for the war. The politicians are practicing politics. No wonder the American people as a whole have stopped caring...
Taco John
07-27-2007, 06:16 PM
I think this is detestable, but there were few conservatives complaining about the earmarks going in when it was a Republican dominated congress. Bridges to nowhere in Alaska ring a bell?
Cito Pelon
07-28-2007, 10:35 PM
I think this is detestable, but there were few conservatives complaining about the earmarks going in when it was a Republican dominated congress. Bridges to nowhere in Alaska ring a bell?
I'm not sure what the link is between the lobbyists, the DNC and RNC, and our elected Federal Congressmen. But they're way too much inbred. They get elected by us, but seems to me they gain power positions - leadership positions - by the DNC and RNC. And the DNC and RNC are led by the nose by lobbyists representing big chunks of money.
And the leadership positions of either Party "enforce Party discipline" by basically Mafia strong-arm methods. "You vote as I say, or I blackball you", that type of stuff. Granted, that's politics, been there done that.
However, I think in these days of mass communications, it's easier to destroy a "rogue" politician like a Chuck Hagel, R/NE for instance who wants to be a centrist.
Note that none of the usual Democrats-to-lefties have seen fit to say one thing on this topic. The silence is deafening...
Spider
07-28-2007, 10:50 PM
matter of time kiddies .........W*GS I went over this in another thread , earmarks...... ****ing pay attention ........Damn Boy how many times does something have to be posted before you pick up on it ?
How often is it pointed out that you and your ilk are conspicuously silent on a thread, and then you pop in and attempt to prove me wrong with little more than a cheap shot at me personally?
Spider needs new some new tricks...
TheDave
07-29-2007, 10:14 AM
When is this country going to get serious about publicly financed campaigns? Until we lessen the influence of "big money" we are just going to keep seeing the same thing over and over again.
Spider
07-29-2007, 11:09 AM
How often is it pointed out that you and your ilk are conspicuously silent on a thread, and then you pop in and attempt to prove me wrong with little more than a cheap shot at me personally?
Spider needs new some new tricks...
BooHoo ......get used to me not being down here much , football ...... as for the cheapshot ? the truth is never a cheap shot , if you dont like it , then change ......
Spider
07-29-2007, 11:14 AM
When is this country going to get serious about publicly financed campaigns? Until we lessen the influence of "big money" we are just going to keep seeing the same thing over and over again.
LOL we are called peeons for a reason ....... I have many rich relatives , between them and their friends , the logic is , some people are meant to ride , others were meant to be rode ........
No way in hell will they ever let a commoner , a peasant have a say ..........
TheDave
07-29-2007, 11:21 AM
LOL we are called peeons for a reason ....... I have many rich relatives , between them and their friends , the logic is , some people are meant to ride , others were meant to be rode ........
No way in hell will they ever let a commoner , a peasant have a say ..........
I know what you are saying, but since there are a lot more of us commoners we should be able to over ride their desires. Honestly, without a serious overhaul of the system we are just voting for different versions of "Republi-crats"
The want to keep you fat and dull for a reason.
Spider
07-29-2007, 11:28 AM
I know what you are saying, but since trhere are a lot more of us commoners we should be able to over ride their desires. Honestely, without a serious overhaul of the system all we are just going to keep voting for different versions of "Republi-crats"
;D we cant even decide on what Soda pop to drink , Much like trucking , Trucking is a very powerful industry , but we dont stick together , and we wont , days of the powerful Teamsters are gone ...... No way the powerful will let the commoners have a say when we are all over the place on issues
Spider's familiarity with the truth (and facts) is passing, at best.
How comfortable would you be with a chunk of your taxes going to a candidate whose positions you detest?
Subsidizing political campaigns with our taxes is a horrible idea. It does nothing but entrench the system.
TheDave
07-29-2007, 02:39 PM
How comfortable would you be with a chunk of your taxes going to a candidate whose positions you detest?
Subsidizing political campaigns with our taxes is a horrible idea. It does nothing but entrench the system.
Considering I already detest some of the candidates... I don't think i would have a problem with it. As for entrenching the system, The entire system is about financing ones campaign. Currentely it costs about 5 million to run for congress, It would be a enormouse benefit if our politicians weren't forced to spend the majority of their time makeing promises for money...
So what is your solution?
Bronco Bob
07-29-2007, 02:43 PM
How comfortable would you be with a chunk of your taxes going to a candidate whose positions you detest?
Subsidizing political campaigns with our taxes is a horrible idea. It does nothing but entrench the system.
Private financing isn't working either. So what is your solution?
At least with government financing each candidate gets a fixed
amount, and they aren't beholden to any special interests.
Private financing isn't working either. So what is your solution?
At least with government financing each candidate gets a fixed
amount, and they aren't beholden to any special interests.
Ya know this is such a no-brainer that to not have it fixed years ago causes me to wonder that maybe this thing is not fixable.
Maybe it (systems) has to really fall apart in order to allow a space to piece by piece fix this quagmire of a government we have on our heads.
So what is your solution?
Unlimited contributions with total transparency and a requirement to report to the FEC.
Private financing isn't working either. So what is your solution?
Unlimited contributions with total transparency and a requirement to report to the FEC.
At least with government financing each candidate gets a fixed amount, and they aren't beholden to any special interests.
What's the problem with "special interests"? Or are they OK when they represent your interests, but bad when they represent others' interests?
Bronco Bob
07-29-2007, 04:11 PM
Unlimited contributions with total transparency and a requirement to report to the FEC.
I still don't see how this gets around the congressman being bought by
the highest bidder and then being beholden to them.
What's the problem with "special interests"? Or are they OK when they represent your interests, but bad when they represent others' interests?
The problem is your interests and my interests aren't the same.
So as it stands now, the congressman goes to the highest bidder.
Where the congressman should only be beholden to the people
that voted for him or her. With a subsidized system the people that
finance the congressman are the same people that vote for the
congressman. Thus no conflict of interest.
TheDave
07-29-2007, 04:21 PM
Unlimited contributions with total transparency and a requirement to report to the FEC.
So you are good with...
1) The majority of politicians time being spent trading favors for money.
2) The fact that politicians are loyal to the money holders and not the general public
Personally i see that as the major problem of our current system.
Spider
07-29-2007, 04:39 PM
How comfortable would you be with a chunk of your taxes going to a candidate whose positions you detest?
Subsidizing political campaigns with our taxes is a horrible idea. It does nothing but entrench the system.
I have a huge problem with where my taxes go ..........But a hard fact of life ....... those have the money make the rules ..... you and me = pissing up a rope
I still don't see how this gets around the congressman being bought by the highest bidder and then being beholden to them.
We would know how much each Congresscum got, and from whom. We could then judge them at election time accordingly.
The problem is your interests and my interests aren't the same.
That's not a problem. Thank goodness.
So as it stands now, the congressman goes to the highest bidder. Where the congressman should only be beholden to the people that voted for him or her.
Congresscum are obligated to their oath of office, not necessarily the voters. Ponder that a bit before firing off a response.
With a subsidized system the people that finance the congressman are the same people that vote for the congressman. Thus no conflict of interest.
Well, not quite. Why should taxpayers in (say) Arkansas subsidize the election of Congresscum from California? The AR folks get no say in what the CA Congresscum does...
So you are good with...
1) The majority of politicians time being spent trading favors for money.
Transparency would assure that we would know what favors are being gotten for how much money. On the other hand, if voters get wise and start voting in libertarians, and the scope of government is thus reduced, then the temptation for de facto bribery lessens. It won't do Mr. Superrich any good to give Congresscum Boughten money for something that Congress has no power to legislate.
2) The fact that politicians are loyal to the money holders and not the general public
Given that many of the money holders are interest groups to which many citizens belong, that's not a problem.
Cito Pelon
07-29-2007, 06:05 PM
Ya know this is such a no-brainer that to not have it fixed years ago causes me to wonder that maybe this thing is not fixable.
Maybe it (systems) has to really fall apart in order to allow a space to piece by piece fix this quagmire of a government we have on our heads.
My solution is give the candidates any amount they want - hell, there's already a box on every tax form for donations - but for every dollar given them they have to perform some amount of community service.
I believe that method of campaign finance serves everybody just fine. The long time politicians that are used to making inbred deals within the Beltway power structure have to go back and mingle with us Great Unwashed, and since they really don't want to do that, that makes movement in the Beltway power structure.
TheDave
07-29-2007, 06:08 PM
Transparency would assure that we would know what favors are being gotten for how much money.
See I would like to get rid of the favors...period. I don't see any benefit in knowing how i'm going to get screwed. On top of that many of these "donors" are covering their bets by giving to both sides of the fence. Again none of this helps joe citizen.
Given that many of the money holders are interest groups to which many citizens belong, that's not a problem.
See again, this is not a benefit in my opinion. Frankly, i'm tired of the NRA and labor unions having as much say as they do.
...and to be honest i doubt that these lobbies have anywhere near the buying power that big oil and big pharma have.
Are you (meaning everyone) happy with the performance of your Congresscum? If so, why? If not, why not?
It can't be the case for everyone (meaning all voters) that their Congresscum is OK, but the other ones are bums.
My congressman is a wet back
Bronco Bob
07-29-2007, 08:21 PM
Are you (meaning everyone) happy with the performance of your Congresscum? If so, why? If not, why not?
It can't be the case for everyone (meaning all voters) that their Congresscum is OK, but the other ones are bums.
In that mine has only been in office less than a year now, I haven't
really formed an opinion yet.
Rigs11
07-30-2007, 12:37 PM
Note that none of the usual Democrats-to-lefties have seen fit to say one thing on this topic. The silence is deafening...
note that as usual you come out in full force to damn the dems and support the repukes oh brave libertarian. :rofl: And what about your 'others have done it in the past' card that you always play to excuse the repukes? Does it only apply to them and not the dems?
Give it up, Rigs11. Note also that you're proving my point - you're just attacking me personally, not commenting on the fact your beloved Dems are swimming in the same ocean of earmarking nonsense as the hated GOP...
Rigs11
07-30-2007, 02:40 PM
Give it up, Rigs11. Note also that you're proving my point - you're just attacking me personally, not commenting on the fact your beloved Dems are swimming in the same ocean of earmarking nonsense as the hated GOP...
Come now, where am i attacking you?it is known on this board that you have a deep hate for clinton and the dems, and that you excuse dubya and his cronies with other past politicians 'doing it too'. i asked you some questions in my last post. how is that attacking you?man up.
You're just upset that I pointed out your hypocrisy - when Republicans earmark billions, that's BAD, and you get all upset. When Democrats earmark billions, well, you'll just let it slide.
Spider
07-30-2007, 03:03 PM
You're just upset that I pointed out your hypocrisy - when Republicans earmark billions, that's BAD, and you get all upset. When Democrats earmark billions, well, you'll just let it slide.
Hilarious! Hilarious! Hilarious! pot this is the kettle ......
Bronco Bob
07-30-2007, 03:20 PM
Spider has a good point, W*gs. Where were all your posts decrying the
Republican earmarks when the GOP had control of Congress?
For a self-proclaimed Libertarian, you sure are quick to rush to the
defense of Bush and the GOP and are equally quick to dump on
Clinton and the Democrats.
Spider has a good point, W*gs. Where were all your posts decrying the
Republican earmarks when the GOP had control of Congress?
For a self-proclaimed Libertarian, you sure are quick to rush to the
defense of Bush and the GOP and are equally quick to dump on
Clinton and the Democrats.
You noticed that too huh.
Garcia Bronco
07-30-2007, 03:45 PM
""This is George Bush's war," Hillary Clinton said. "He is responsible for this war. He started the war. He mismanaged the war. He escalated the war. And he refuses to end the war.""
-After I, Hillary Clinton voted for it
Rigs11
07-30-2007, 04:12 PM
""This is George Bush's war," Hillary Clinton said. "He is responsible for this war. He started the war. He mismanaged the war. He escalated the war. And he refuses to end the war.""
-After I, Hillary Clinton voted for it
based on the way bush/cheney presented the threat to congress before her vote?what's your point?
Spider has a good point, W*gs. Where were all your posts decrying the Republican earmarks when the GOP had control of Congress? For a self-proclaimed Libertarian, you sure are quick to rush to the defense of Bush and the GOP and are equally quick to dump on Clinton and the Democrats.
Pork is pork, regardless of which party the proposing Congresscum belongs to.
Here I thought the Dems were gonna clean up the swamp of corruption that Congress had become under the GOP, yet, we see the reality is different. It doesn't surprise me in the slightest, and if you Democrats/lefties are surprised, well, you're incredibly naive.
Bronco_Beerslug
07-30-2007, 05:00 PM
Pork is pork, regardless of which party the proposing Congresscum belongs to.
Here I thought the Dems were gonna clean up the swamp of corruption that Congress had become under the GOP, yet, we see the reality is different. It doesn't surprise me in the slightest, and if you Democrats/lefties are surprised, well, you're incredibly naive.Yeah, it just amazes me that Democrats haven't cleaned up all the messes of 10+ years of Republican Congress. After all, they've had 7 months now.
Bronco Bob
07-30-2007, 05:03 PM
Yeah, it just amazes me that Democrats haven't cleaned up all the messes of 10+ years of Republican Congress. After all, they've had 7 months now.
And never mind that they only have a 51 - 49 majority in the Senate
and thus not nearly enough to over ride a Bush veto.
Yeah, it just amazes me that Democrats haven't cleaned up all the messes of 10+ years of Republican Congress. After all, they've had 7 months now.
AFAICT, the Dems haven't even started. Why do you think Congress' approval rating is in the toilet right along with GWB's?
Spider
07-30-2007, 07:38 PM
Pork is pork, regardless of which party the proposing Congresscum belongs to.
Here I thought the Dems were gonna clean up the swamp of corruption that Congress had become under the GOP, yet, we see the reality is different. It doesn't surprise me in the slightest, and if you Democrats/lefties are surprised, well, you're incredibly naive.
LOL someone needs to take your shovel away before you keep digging a deeper hole ........ ROFL! too late BB and Bronco Bob are ready busted you up on this ........
Spider
07-30-2007, 07:39 PM
AFAICT, the Dems haven't even started. Why do you think Congress' approval rating is in the toilet right along with GWB's?
you getting enough air ?
About time for another lame thread with my handle in the title, courtesy Spider...
Spider
07-30-2007, 08:26 PM
About time for another lame thread with my handle in the title, courtesy Spider...
soon , but to be honest Iam getting tired of pulling you out of the holes you dig for yourself .......... I cant always be there to save you W*GS
The "hole" Spidey is in:
http://www.zooass.com/postcards/images/butthead.jpg
Spider
07-30-2007, 08:49 PM
The "hole" Spidey is in:
http://www.zooass.com/postcards/images/butthead.jpg
you know W*GS I am writing a book and for this chapter I was thinking of having you kiss my ass and have a little love story in it ......
""This is George Bush's war," Hillary Clinton said. "He is responsible for this war. He started the war. He mismanaged the war. He escalated the war. And he refuses to end the war.""
-After I, Hillary Clinton voted for it
:notworthy
Unfortunately this is OUR war, and our American solders over there and the consequences will be felt by all of us as well... whether we stay or leave.
This “us” vs. ”them” crap when it comes to war is a dangerous thing --last time I checked we were all Americans (minus the few alien visitors here.) :-*
Rigs11
07-30-2007, 11:20 PM
:notworthy
Unfortunately this is OUR war, and our American solders over there and the consequences will be felt by all of us as well... whether we stay or leave.
This “us” vs. ”them” crap when it comes to war is a dangerous thing --last time I checked we were all Americans (minus the few alien visitors here.) :-*
it's not a war. it's an occupation. The war lies in pakistan.