mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770 
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Feb 7, 2012 10:05:22 GMT -5
A long, but quite interesting article. Earmarks like those highlighted in this article have long been, IMO, a black hole for money that could have been much better spent. (Washington Post) This story is the latest installment in the Washington Post's series "Capitol Assets," based on an examination of the finances of all 435 members of the House of Representatives and 100 members of the U.S. Senate. This story was written by David S. Fallis, Scott Higham and Kimberly Kindy. A U.S. senator from Alabama directed more than $100 million in federal earmarks to renovate downtown Tuscaloosa near his own commercial office building. A congressman from Georgia secured $6.3 million in taxpayer funds to replenish the beach about 900 feet from his island vacation cottage. A representative from Michigan earmarked $486,000 to add a bike lane to a bridge within walking distance of her home. Thirty-three members of Congress have steered more than $300 million in earmarks and other spending provisions to dozens of public projects that are next to or within about two miles of the lawmakers' own property, according to a Washington Post investigation. Under the ethics rules Congress has written for itself, this is both legal and undisclosed. The rest of the article can be found here: www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57372310/lawmakers-properties-can-benefit-from-earmarks/ |
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Feb 7, 2012 15:25:35 GMT -5
Earmarks in themselves are not bad, they are simply funding directed by congress, which is one of there duties.
|
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Feb 7, 2012 15:30:04 GMT -5
Earmarks in themselves are not bad, they are simply funding directed by congress, which is one of there duties. The problem with earmarks is they get tacked on to other unrelated pieces of legislation. Becomes a pandora's box. If the earmark is worthy of being approved, they should be separate pieces of legislation. |
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Feb 7, 2012 16:24:26 GMT -5
Earmarks in themselves are not bad, they are simply funding directed by congress, which is one of there duties. The problem with earmarks is they get tacked on to other unrelated pieces of legislation. Becomes a pandora's box. If the earmark is worthy of being approved, they should be separate pieces of legislation. That is true, but I would call that pork. |
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Feb 7, 2012 16:26:59 GMT -5
That is true, but I would call that pork.
What would you call pork, an earmark?
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397 
|
Post by ugonow on Feb 7, 2012 16:48:42 GMT -5
The other guys spending request.
|
|
