Democrats hide pet projects from voters

[Ban Hammer 13,346]

WASHINGTON - After promising unprecedented openness regarding Congress' pork barrel practices, House Democrats are moving in the opposite direction as they draw up spending bills for the upcoming budget year.

Democrats are sidestepping rules approved their first day in power in January to clearly identify "earmarks" — lawmakers' requests for specific projects and contracts for their states.

Rather than including specific pet projects, grants and contracts in legislation as it is being written, Democrats are following an order by the House Appropriations Committee chairman to keep the bills free of such earmarks until it is too late for critics to effectively challenge them.

Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., says those requests for dams, community grants and research contracts for favored universities or hospitals will be added to spending measures in the fall. That is when House and Senate negotiators assemble final bills.

Such requests total billions of dollars.

As a result, most lawmakers will not get a chance to oppose specific projects as wasteful or questionable when the spending bills for various agencies get their first votes in the full House in June.

The House-Senate compromise bills due for final action in September cannot be amended and are subject to only one hour of debate, precluding challenges to individual projects.

Obey insists he is reluctantly taking the step because Appropriations Committee members and staff have not had enough time to fully review the 36,000 earmark requests that have flooded the committee.

What Obey is doing runs counter to new rules that Democrats promised would make such spending decisions more open.

link

[Ban Hammer 13,346]

grrr wrong forum, i'll get someone to move this.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It is shameful. Business as usual - hopefully that won't go over well with the voters when election time comes around again.

[Ban Hammer 13,346]

It is shameful. Business as usual - hopefully that won't go over well with the voters when election time comes around again.

finally, we agree about something on politics

[Otto 83]

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It is shameful. Business as usual - hopefully that won't go over well with the voters when election time comes around again.

finally, we agree about something on politics

There is the prevailing problem in Washington - powerful lobbyists. Pointing at the politicians isn't really addressing the real problem. McCain and Feingold have tried to clean out the money in Washington - and until K Street is wiped clean of scum, business as usual will continue.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

It is shameful. Business as usual - hopefully that won't go over well with the voters when election time comes around again.

finally, we agree about something on politics

There is the prevailing problem in Washington - powerful lobbyists. Pointing at the politicians isn't really addressing the real problem. McCain and Feingold have tried to clean out the money in Washington - and until K Street is wiped clean of scum, business as usual will continue.

Yeah, I saw a report on TV the other night where they discussed the lobbyists that the pharmaceutical industry employs in DC. Believe it or not, they have 1200 lobbyists in DC just from big pharma. That's about 2 lobbyists per each Senator and Congressman. No wonder that Americans get ripped off for medications...

[Scott & Lai 12]

It is shameful. Business as usual - hopefully that won't go over well with the voters when election time comes around again.

finally, we agree about something on politics

There is the prevailing problem in Washington - powerful lobbyists. Pointing at the politicians isn't really addressing the real problem. McCain and Feingold have tried to clean out the money in Washington - and until K Street is wiped clean of scum, business as usual will continue.

McCain and Feingold also seriously damaged our First Ammendment rights by preventing ads which specifically mention members of Congress by name within 60 days of a general election, and 30 days of a primary. Voters should be able to hear what their representatives are doing.

Edited June 3, 2007 by Scott & Lai

[Fandango 1,439]

when ppl realize that most politicians are lying b@stards - regardless of what side of the political coin they are on, the world will be a better place.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It is shameful. Business as usual - hopefully that won't go over well with the voters when election time comes around again.

finally, we agree about something on politics

There is the prevailing problem in Washington - powerful lobbyists. Pointing at the politicians isn't really addressing the real problem. McCain and Feingold have tried to clean out the money in Washington - and until K Street is wiped clean of scum, business as usual will continue.

McCain and Feingold also seriously damaged our First Ammendment rights by preventing ads which specifically mention members of Congress by name within 60 days of a general election, and 30 days of a primary. Voters should be able to hear what their representatives are doing.

I don't agree. Political ads should be about a politician spreading their message - letting voters know what it is that they stand for. The negative campaign ads stretch the truth at best about their opponent and the name of the game is if you can instill enough doubt in the voters about your opponent, they'll vote for you or not vote at all. I had a professor in college call it passive nihilism - people making choices not based on believing in someone or something, but as a reaction against something. Psychologically - it is very effective and that's why campaign strategists do it - but it comes at a cost to us all.

[Alex+R 0]

McCain and Feingold also seriously damaged our First Ammendment rights by preventing ads which specifically mention members of Congress by name within 60 days of a general election, and 30 days of a primary. Voters should be able to hear what their representatives are doing.

You get your information on what your representatives are doing through ads?

when ppl realize that most politicians are lying b@stards - regardless of what side of the political coin they are on, the world will be a better place.

It's true. I really like one candidate (president) now, for example, but have a really hard time going to work for them because I have a basic mistrust of all politicians. I don't understand how people can line up behind one person and say "this is the guy for us. We all agree with everything he says." In a way it's like organized religion.

[Scott & Lai 12]

It is shameful. Business as usual - hopefully that won't go over well with the voters when election time comes around again.

finally, we agree about something on politics

There is the prevailing problem in Washington - powerful lobbyists. Pointing at the politicians isn't really addressing the real problem. McCain and Feingold have tried to clean out the money in Washington - and until K Street is wiped clean of scum, business as usual will continue.

McCain and Feingold also seriously damaged our First Ammendment rights by preventing ads which specifically mention members of Congress by name within 60 days of a general election, and 30 days of a primary. Voters should be able to hear what their representatives are doing.

I don't agree. Political ads should be about a politician spreading their message - letting voters know what it is that they stand for. The negative campaign ads stretch the truth at best about their opponent and the name of the game is if you can instill enough doubt in the voters about your opponent, they'll vote for you or not vote at all. I had a professor in college call it passive nihilism - people making choices not based on believing in someone or something, but as a reaction against something. Psychologically - it is very effective and that's why campaign strategists do it - but it comes at a cost to us all.

So, there is no truth-stretching in the positive ads? I'm not a fan of mud-slinging ads, either; ads should be about real issues. But the people have a right to know the candidates' voting records, something which many of them don't want made public knowlege.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

It is shameful. Business as usual - hopefully that won't go over well with the voters when election time comes around again.

finally, we agree about something on politics

There is the prevailing problem in Washington - powerful lobbyists. Pointing at the politicians isn't really addressing the real problem. McCain and Feingold have tried to clean out the money in Washington - and until K Street is wiped clean of scum, business as usual will continue.

McCain and Feingold also seriously damaged our First Ammendment rights by preventing ads which specifically mention members of Congress by name within 60 days of a general election, and 30 days of a primary. Voters should be able to hear what their representatives are doing.

I don't agree. Political ads should be about a politician spreading their message - letting voters know what it is that they stand for. The negative campaign ads stretch the truth at best about their opponent and the name of the game is if you can instill enough doubt in the voters about your opponent, they'll vote for you or not vote at all. I had a professor in college call it passive nihilism - people making choices not based on believing in someone or something, but as a reaction against something. Psychologically - it is very effective and that's why campaign strategists do it - but it comes at a cost to us all.

So, there is no truth-stretching in the positive ads? I'm not a fan of mud-slinging ads, either; ads should be about real issues. But the people have a right to know the candidates' voting records, something which many of them don't want made public knowlege.

Like the mudslingers have pristine voting records. Plus, it's often not the voting record that is being attacked. Sometimes, candidates are just swiftboated. No voting record there. Just good old mud-slinging and tearing down of a veteran. Very valuable and worth preserving indeed.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

when ppl realize that most politicians are lying b@stards - regardless of what side of the political coin they are on, the world will be a better place.

I think most people realize that already - the real problem is apathy, and the inability/unwillingness to actively do anything but perpetuate the status quo.

[Jamie76 0]

I know Mr. Obey. He represents my district. All I can say is there is always two sides to every story.