Those "Evil" Earmarks!!!

[Mr. Shaman]

"The AP reported that Republicans "have called on [President] Obama to veto a pending $410 billion spending bill because it includes more than 8,000 earmarks," without noting that many of the earmarks were included at the request of Republicans."

I guess these Republicans "couldn't recall" what they'd done.

​

 

[HankHill]

Today's Republicans in office are Democrats now, so it doesn't matter. Haven't you figured that out yet?

Republicans != Conservative anymore.

 

[chestnut]

Shaman. Even some dems are saying no way to the 410 billion loaded with earmarks.

Let's not make this about left and right

It's simply about right and wrong.

People in FL don't want to pay for crap in NY and I'm sure peopl in NY don't want to pay for crap in FL

A budget should be just that.. a budget. Not extra projects.

 

[Depeche Toad]

Barack Obama said he was going to end them. WTF?

 

[chestnut]

Yeah.. Barrack lied a lot during the election. It's just one more to add to the long long list of lies.

 

[chestnut]

Dems are against the 410billion.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7008254&page=1

 

[Little-Acorn]

People in FL don't want to pay for crap in NY and I'm sure peopl in NY don't want to pay for crap in FL

Such things have been unconstitutional since the founding of the Country, of course. But anyone who wants the Fed gvot to start obeying that particular Constitutional restriction, will have to take a number and stand in a LONG line.

The "Welfare Clause", which many leftists try to pretend means that the govt can do anything it wants that will help any people, actually means exactly the opposite.

When the Const was written, there were two kinds of "Welfare" that legislation generally addressed. "General Welfare" referred to things that help all US citizens equally, such as improving the navigability of major rivers or other such nationwide projects. "Particular Welfare" referred to helping isolated groups (what we now call special interests). Auto workers, or everyone in Connecticut, or black people, etc. And the "Welfare Clause" in the Const, specifically says that the Fed govt can spend tax money on things that will help ALL people in the US EQUALLY... with the specific exclusion of special interests.

Judgements have to be made whether a project's benefits are "general enough", of course. Clearing out the Mississippi River would certainly help all states that adjoin it, and might also help other states whose trade with those states becomes easier; though it might not help a few isolated areas. OTOH, paying to repave a stretch of road in Denver, CO, certainly won't help "all citizens equally".

But I strongly doubt that most of the 9,000 earmarks in the present budget, are "general enough" to pass constitutional muster.

Of course, constitutional adherence hasn't been the strong suit of any administration since the early 1930s. It remains a useful yardstick, though, if only to gauge how much we have to repair, to start running like a real country again instead of a corrupt third-world bazaar.

 

[chestnut]

Mike Church on Serius 144 today mentioned the states actually had individual sovereignty and would be able to have the legislatures in our state re-call the reps that are not actively acting in our best interest.

Anyone got a comment on that?

 

[Little-Acorn]

Mike Church on Serius 144 today mentioned the states actually had individual sovereignty and would be able to have the legislatures in our state re-call the reps that are not actively acting in our best interest.

Anyone got a comment on that?

Hmmm, California recalled a governor by popular ballot a while back. And the Illinois legislature booted one out just last month.

Can they do that to their members of the U.S. Senate or House of Reps?

 

[Dr.Who]

I guess these Republicans "couldn't recall" what they'd done.

​

The dems can pass the bill without help from the pubs. There is no reason to include earmarks to make pubs happy except to share the blame when things go poorly.

If the bill were expected to be a success then we would expect that the dems would give the pubs zero in requested earmarks.

If Obama were honest we would expect him to veto the bill.

Pubs did not say that they would put a stop to earmarks but they should have. The problem is that pubs and dems are are all just zebras. Some are black with white stripes and some are white with black stripes.

You have to look really close to see a difference. But when you do pubs are closer to what we need - not by much.

 

[chestnut]

I agree. Earmrarks are not a single-party problem.

But since Obama ran on stopping them and he's not doing that, he is full of it.