Ban on Pet Projects Mostly Symbolic

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Republicans have been beating their chests about this and as most informed people already knew, it won't make a difference...

----------------------------------------------------------
Ban on pet projects mostly symbolic

By ALAN FRAM, Associated Press Alan Fram, Associated Press – 42 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Despite their claims, the Republicans' ban on earmarks won't stop lawmakers from steering taxpayers' dollars to pet projects. And it will have little if any effect on Washington's far graver problem — the gigantic budget deficit.

Saying Election Day victories gave them a mandate to curb spending, Republicans formally agreed last week to a two-year prohibition of earmarks, legislative provisions that funnel money to lawmakers' favorite projects. President Barack Obama has said he, too, wants to restrict earmarks, though he defended some as helping communities.

"I am proud that House and Senate Republicans have united to end the earmark favor factory," said Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., a leader in the drive to stop the practice.

While the ban will make it harder for lawmakers to bring pork-barrel spending back home, it is far from airtight.

Savvy members of Congress have options like "phone-marking," picking up the telephone and pressuring agency officials to spend money on specific projects. Lawmakers are sure to exploit uncertainty over exactly how the ban will be applied, such as whether it will bar money for projects already in the works. And Democrats, who will still run the Senate next year, have not agreed to the restrictions. Neither have some Republicans.

"There's no way you can stamp out every effort" by lawmakers to bring home the bacon, said Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., another leading earmark foe. "But you can marginalize it."

Even completely eliminating earmarks would hardly ensure that spending decisions will be objective and divorced from politics. Presidents and agency officials control where many federal dollars go and have always used that power to reward allies. And formulas that automatically disburse other funds to states are themselves products of past political compromises, with their own sets of winners and losers.

"It makes those who ranted and raved against earmarks feel good," Robert Reischauer, the Urban Institute president and former chief of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, said of the GOP ban. "But it is largely cosmetic."

Spending for earmarks peaked in 2006, when lawmakers diverted $29 billion to hometown projects, according to Citizens Against Government Waste. The numbers have dipped to about $16 billion last year for 9,000 earmarks, thanks to public pressure and the infamy of influence-seekers like the convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

That $16 billion is undeniably real money, but it amounts to just half of 1 percent of the $3.5 trillion federal budget. Lawmakers carve most earmarks from within agency budgets, so eliminating them would not save money but simply mean it would be spent on something else.

CONT.

[JJJ]

Wow, there is a news flash flash for ya.

Banning earmarks only saves money if it makes it less likely that people will vote for spending bills they normally wouldn't vote for if the earmarks were left out. If it prevents people from casting a yes vote for the wrong reason, not for the substance of the major part of the bill, then such a ban serves a very useful purpose.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by JJJ

Wow, there is a news flash flash for ya.

Banning earmarks only saves money if it makes it less likely that people will vote for spending bills they normally wouldn't vote for if the earmarks were left out. If it prevents people from casting a yes vote for the wrong reason, not for the substance of the major part of the bill, then such a ban serves a very useful purpose.

Ha ha ha!

Nice dodge.

You have nothing to say about the fact that the repigs tried to sell us the idea that their proposed earmark ban was going to have an effect when it came to reducing the deficit.

[Missouribronc]

Shocker. My elected Senator, whom I did not vote for, didn't support it to begin with because he's a piece of crap for a representative. (Did I mention he's a Republican?)

Anyone pounding their chest about this shocking news is an idiot peddling their own useless partisan bull****.

The system has to change. You idiots that tell me I'm a Republican, just as much as the idiots who blindly support Republicans need to open your eyes and realize its ALL politicians. That includes your beloved Democrats.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Missouribronc

The system has to change. You idiots that tell me I'm a Republican, just as much as the idiots who blindly support Republicans need to open your eyes and realize its ALL politicians. That includes your beloved Democrats.

You can certainly make the case that they all suck, but that doesn't mean there isn't still a big difference between the two major parties and their records.

Part of the problem for the Democrats this election was making the voters aware of their accomplishments (even if you feel those accomplishments were underwhelming.)



The repukes, on the other hand, have done nothing but engage in political posturing, maneuvering, obstructionism, and sandbagging for the past two years.

You name the issue of importance to average Americans, and the repukes will turn it into a political football every single time.

For two years, the republi-cons sat on the sidelines and attacked Obama without saying anything about how they would fix the historical economic crisis they bequeathed to the president and his party.

They were not forthcoming with any straight answers on how they would fix the deficit, what programs they would cut, etc., during this election cycle - unless it was some bullsh*t proposal like cuts to endowments for the arts, earmark bans, etc.

[Missouribronc]

Nice non-answer answer. They might all suck, but they suck worse supported by the biggest straw man argument I could use.

At best, dude, you're a fraud. At worst...never mind.

[JJJ]

Banning earmarks, whether symbolic or not, is a good thing. Not hard to get on board with that one whether you are republican or democrat.

But somehow you guys found a way to oppose it anyway. And the republicans are throwing the political footballs?

That cartoon is the craziest thing you have posted yet. Obama is at the bottom of that chasm furiously digging his way to China.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Missouribronc

Nice non-answer answer. They might all suck, but they suck worse supported by the biggest straw man argument I could use.

At best, dude, you're a fraud. At worst...never mind.

You must be drinking and posting again.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by JJJ

That cartoon is the craziest thing you have posted yet. Obama is at the bottom of that chasm furiously digging his way to China.

Coming from a guy who thinks Bush and the Republicans are blameless when accounting for the causes of the great recession and that it's all on the party that was out of power for ~8 years, I'll take that with a whopping grain of salt.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

[JJJ]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Coming from a guy who thinks Bush and the Republicans are blameless when accounting for the causes of the great recession and that it's all on the party that was out of power for ~8 years, I'll take that with a whopping grain of salt.

I hold Bush and the democratic congress pretty much equally to blame for the housing crisis. Barney Frank for doing everything he could to create the bubble and Bush for not doing anything to stop it and encouraging wreckless homeownership. Wreckless bankers and wreckless citizens can take the other quarters of the blame.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by JJJ

I hold Bush and the democratic congress pretty much equally to blame for the housing crisis.

In spite of the fact that private sector loans - not FM&FM - caused the crisis.

And in spite of the fact that your party blocked and filibustered practically everything the Dems tried to do when the latter held a slim majority during the last two years of Dim Son's presidency.

[JJJ]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

In spite of the fact that private sector loans - not FM&FM - caused the crisis.

And in spite of the fact that your party blocked and filibustered practically everything the Dems tried to do when the latter held a slim majority during the last two years of Dim Son's presidency.

Funny stuff. Freddie and Fannie had no part in the crisis. Classic blind response.

[cutthemdown]

Well the big problem was these politicians spending so much time on the earmarks. We pay them to do our work not spend hours and hours trying to get one of there earmarks onto a bill.

IMO we could probably make these Congressman part time and cut there pay in half. Most of the time the sit around doing nothing, talking on the phone, having there asses kissed.

[Spider]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

Well the big problem was these politicians spending so much time on the earmarks. We pay them to do our work not spend hours and hours trying to get one of there earmarks onto a bill.

IMO we could probably make these Congressman part time and cut there pay in half. Most of the time the sit around doing nothing, talking on the phone, having there asses kissed.

ear marks are the work of the people ...... the bedwetters used earmarks on the stupid part of the population as a wedge issue .......
Next time you take a cab or a bus , thank earmarks ..... from construction , right down to the very Bus u took

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by Spider

ear marks are the work of the people ...... the bedwetters used earmarks on the stupid part of the population as a wedge issue .......
Next time you take a cab or a bus , thank earmarks ..... from construction , right down to the very Bus u took

Like I said they spend too many hours on these earmarks. I originally was in the camp that thought this was a non issue. But when I read that they spend tons of hours on these things I started to think maybe it was corrupt and needed to go.

On the cab thing I'm not sure how fed earmarks help me take a cab but whatever. You always have some strange ways of making a point.

There is no reason things like busses cant be taken care of locally by the taxpayers in that area who will be using them. No way my fed tax dollars should ever pay for a bus in Colo.

Everything would work out if states could just keep more of there citizens money. Only way to do that is for feds to get out of our lives.

[Spider]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

Like I said they spend too many hours on these earmarks. I originally was in the camp that thought this was a non issue. But when I read that they spend tons of hours on these things I started to think maybe it was corrupt and needed to go.

On the cab thing I'm not sure how fed earmarks help me take a cab but whatever. You always have some strange ways of making a point.

There is no reason things like busses cant be taken care of locally by the taxpayers in that area who will be using them. No way my fed tax dollars should ever pay for a bus in Colo.

Everything would work out if states could just keep more of there citizens money. Only way to do that is for feds to get out of our lives.

I would agree to a point , but the problem with states running everything is you will pay more in state taxes to take up the losses for the fed money .......

[elsid13]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

Like I said they spend too many hours on these earmarks. I originally was in the camp that thought this was a non issue. But when I read that they spend tons of hours on these things I started to think maybe it was corrupt and needed to go.

On the cab thing I'm not sure how fed earmarks help me take a cab but whatever. You always have some strange ways of making a point.

There is no reason things like busses cant be taken care of locally by the taxpayers in that area who will be using them. No way my fed tax dollars should ever pay for a bus in Colo.

Everything would work out if states could just keep more of there citizens money. Only way to do that is for feds to get out of our lives.

They really don't spend that much time on it.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Any step in the right direction is a good step, but there's a loooong way to go to get us back to where we need to be: with our government in service to our people, not the converse.

[JJJ]

The democrats have controlled Congress for four year running now with little or no fiscal discipline. Even after a major recession and a major Keynesian cockup they refuse to accept that lowering spending, in any form, is the right path.

It seems they will continue to pay a heavy political price for this approach.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by JJJ

Funny stuff. Freddie and Fannie had no part in the crisis. Classic blind response.

FM&FM's part in the crisis was, at the very most, negligible compared to the role of the private sector - yet right-wingnuts like you try to claim just the opposite.

THAT'S what I call "classic blind response."

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by JJJ

The democrats have controlled Congress for four year running now with little or no fiscal discipline.

You're on "repeat a lie (or half-truth) often enough" auto pilot, aren't you?

During the last two years of the court-appointed pinhead's presidency, your party was able to block and filibuster nearly everything the slim Dem majority tried to do.

As for the past two years, you always fail to take the reason for the spending, i.e., responding to the crisis Bush and your party created, into account.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

FM&FM's part in the crisis was, at the very most, negligible compared to the role of the private sector - yet right-wingnuts like you try to claim just the opposite.

THAT'S what I call "classic blind response."

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by McSkillet

This from a pathological denier who can't challenge a single fact listed here:

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/1...ot-fannie.html

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Dueling Quotes

"Senator DeMint is courageously standing on conviction with his much-needed proposal to ban earmarks, which will curb wasteful spending and restore accountability to the way Congress spends taxpayer dollars.

- Mitt Romney in 2010 Link

"I'd be embarrassed if I didn't always ask for federal money whenever I get a chance."

- Mitt Romney in 2006 Link