Bush hypocritically loads up on earmarks.
By on Jun 28th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
Bush hypocritically loads up on earmarks.
President Bush has repeatedly attacked Congress for its earmarks and pork barrel projects. Yet a new House Appropriations Committee report accompanying legislation funding the Department of the Interior “shows that Bush requested 93 of the 321 earmarks in the bill. A panel report for the financial services and general government spending bill showed that Bush requested 17 special projects worth $947 million, more than any single member of Congress.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Boehner
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
DADT
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Graham
Guantanamo
Hannity
Health Care
International Relations
Iran
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Limbaugh
Liz Cheney
McCain
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Rove
Sanford
Sotomayor
Steele
Supreme Court
Terrorism
ThinkProgress
Tiller
Torture
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Kettle, meet black.
June 28th, 2007 at 12:09 pmWell, why should we be surprised at this, nothing new here at all.
And now he can be the Earmark Guy along with being the Commander Guy and the Decider Guy.
He is the perfect leader for the 26%ers..... treat them like mushrooms by feeding them sh!t and keeping them in the dark.
June 28th, 2007 at 12:10 pmHa ha ha.
It's almost like he's going out of his way to be hypocritical. I know the coke has messed with his mind, somewhat, but I really think you have to try to be as hypocritical as he has been.
June 28th, 2007 at 12:14 pmCan't wit for the trolls to come on and say "But but it is all Clinton's fault" and "Those numbers lie! Who you going to trust anyway, me or a study?" I am your LEADER and would NEVER lie to you..... or spy on you......or send you to an illegal occupation to be killed..... or run up the largest deficit in history and let China own your and your grandkids' asses...or whore myself out to the NeoCon and Corporate devils.....or destroy the environment..........or..............
June 28th, 2007 at 12:15 pmTHE PARTY OF FISCAL CONSERVATISM IS GONE AND THEY HAVE BEEN SINCE REAGAN WAS ELECTED!!!
Borrow and spend should be the new mantra of the Republican Party. They love to spend. But they hate to tax directly for that spending. So they borrow money, all the while realizing that a tax hike will have to happen at somepoint to pay for that borrowing.
June 28th, 2007 at 12:21 pmBush pilfers funds for his GOPer cronies. Everything Bush does is theft.
June 28th, 2007 at 12:22 pmcue "but -- but -- but -- Clinton did it!" in 3, 2, 1...
June 28th, 2007 at 12:24 pmNo, the big disappointment will be in how the media will fail to follow this revelation. Last week the Chicago tribune was trying to paint the earmark thing as a problem with the 110th congress and it's new leadership. You can bet that the Trib will bury this new revelation - if they report it at all.
June 28th, 2007 at 12:32 pm#8 And things will be so much better in the MSM with Rupert now owning the WSJ too, which never was exactly middle of the road before. Now they can spout whatever PudgeBoy Rover wants them to regarding how well the economy is going, just like his Faux NoNooz does about Iraq (and of course Paris Hilton).
June 28th, 2007 at 12:35 pmBut but but...Clinton did it too! (he did). Spit, youre welcome.
No outrage at the remaining 228 pork projects? Business as usual for the pols and youre just accepting it.
June 28th, 2007 at 12:39 pmEarmarks should be outlawed. This shit is totally ridiculous.
June 28th, 2007 at 12:41 pmwhoah my POPStar(TM)!!!! feisty this morning , are we?
June 28th, 2007 at 12:46 pm:)
i cant beleive Portland gave up AIRAMERICA for ESPN.
June 28th, 2007 at 12:48 pmwhat a bunch of douchebags...
whoah my POPStar(TM)!!!! feisty this morning , are we?
:)
Comment by whiteyfresh
Actually, I'm kind of cranky. :)
Howz you?
June 28th, 2007 at 12:48 pmI iz good. PARIS IS FREE! let the world rejoice. I know I slept easier last night....
I gotta admit, seeing Michael Moore on the Daily Show call CNN 'bastards' for moving his interview from Wednesday to Friday was pretty frikkin funny....
June 28th, 2007 at 12:51 pmCome on, people. Earmarks requested by Congress members are different than when they are requested by the Imperator, Chimpus Maximus. The Imperator, who is also the Decider and the Commander Guy, is above the law and any of the lesser concepts of hypocrasy or ethics.
June 28th, 2007 at 1:11 pmI iz good. PARIS IS FREE! let the world rejoice. I know I slept easier last night….
You must have been so terribly worried..... :P
I gotta admit, seeing Michael Moore on the Daily Show call CNN ‘bastards’ for moving his interview from Wednesday to Friday was pretty frikkin funny….
Comment by whiteyfresh
I'll have to try to find that online. I can't wait for SICKO to open! Now I need to find out how many hundreds of miles I'll have to drive to see it.....
June 28th, 2007 at 1:26 pmSo they borrow money, all the while realizing that a tax hike will have to happen at somepoint to pay for that borrowing.
Why would a tax rate hike be required to pay for that borrowing?
June 28th, 2007 at 1:31 pmIf the Deciderer wants an earmark, it's important by definition. Democratic legislators, on the other hand, not so much. Those earmarks are BAD.
Is that more clear?
June 28th, 2007 at 1:52 pm#19
Why are you comparing the earmarks of an executive, who stands alone, to the earmarks of a single legislator, who is one among 535?
June 28th, 2007 at 1:57 pm#18 - "Why would a tax rate hike be required to pay for that borrowing?" Comment by m12 — June 28, 2007 @ 1:31 pm
Do you see anyone in the Congress or the White House saying: in order to offset the billions of extra spending, we're going to down-size the military, cut off Social Security, eliminate the retirement give-away for all politicians (that they do not pay into at all), and reduce all other spending by the Federal Government.
Remember the lie "It's your tax dollars"? It stopped being "your tax dollars" when the Federal Government ran up debt higher than God would find acceptable. Could you imagine an average family household running up their credit until they've got millions in debt while only making $100,000 annually for decades?
At some point, you either have to increase the money coming in (taxes) or reduce the money going out. If you do neither, you go bankrupt.
June 28th, 2007 at 2:00 pmCould you imagine an average family household running up their credit until they’ve got millions in debt while only making $100,000 annually for decades?
That's a foolish analogy. The United States makes $13.3 trillion annually....for your numbers to work, we'd have to have 133 trillion in debt.
At some point, you either have to increase the money coming in (taxes) or reduce the money going out. If you do neither, you go bankrupt.
Are you assuming the economy is going to stop growing? Why? And how do you feel about the fiscal condition of the nations, including Germany, Japan, and France, whose debt is higher than ours?
June 28th, 2007 at 2:07 pmAt some point, you either have to increase the money coming in (taxes) or reduce the money going out. If you do neither, you go bankrupt. Democrat Soldier
That is the problem you just stated: m12 believes (like most of the Repugs) that you can spend your way out of anything and that debt is GOOD!
I am guessing that m12 still has daddy's credit card and mom packs his lunch for the days he comes out of her basement.
June 28th, 2007 at 2:08 pmHow do you think the 2nd world war was financed, Upside00?
June 28th, 2007 at 2:10 pmWhy are you comparing the earmarks of an executive, who stands alone, to the earmarks of a single legislator, who is one among 535?
Comment by m12
Huh? Because it's hypocritical to criticize others for using earmarks and then turning around and doing it yourself? What's so difficult to understand here?
June 28th, 2007 at 2:21 pm#23 How do you think the 2nd world war was financed, Upside00?
Comment by m12
June 28th, 2007 at 2:26 pmBy selling War Bonds, which were bought by US CITIZENS, so the debt stayed in this country, not going to China!! And it let the country know we were in a war, together. But this Clown Act in the WH doesn't want us to know we are in a (Illegal) war, they won't let anyone see caskets, dead soldiers, or anything else that might cause someone to actually know what is going on. His idea of support was to go shopping, remember? And did you do your part and go?
By selling War Bonds, which were bought by US CITIZENS, so the debt stayed in this country, not going to China!!
Why does this matter? Do you think the US will default on its debt?
June 28th, 2007 at 2:37 pmHuh? Because it’s hypocritical to criticize others for using earmarks and then turning around and doing it yourself? What’s so difficult to understand here?
So then you also believe it is hypocritical for Democrats to criticize the GOP for filibustering after doing it themselves?
June 28th, 2007 at 2:38 pmSo then you also believe it is hypocritical for Democrats to criticize the GOP for filibustering after doing it themselves?
Comment by m12
Sure. Just as soon as you admit it's hypocritical for Bush to criticize legislators for earmarks.
June 28th, 2007 at 2:40 pm#29
If these are indeed earmarks (I'll take your word that they are), I agree with you.
June 28th, 2007 at 2:41 pm#27 Why does this matter? Do you think the US will default on its debt?
Comment by m12
Actually, we may have to, if the rate of increase keeps this pace. And why do we want a country like China to own our and our grandchildren's asses?
As I have said before in this post, spending your way out of debt never works. But maybe your Dad pays your bills.
June 28th, 2007 at 3:03 pmActually, we may have to, if the rate of increase keeps this pace. And why do we want a country like China to own our and our grandchildren’s asses?
They own some $420b in US treasury securities. US Household wealth is in the neighborhood of $60t. How do they "own us"?
June 28th, 2007 at 3:21 pmTP, let's see the list of 93 please...
June 28th, 2007 at 4:15 pm#33
And in addition, the remaining 228 Earmarks created by Congress.
June 28th, 2007 at 7:01 pm