GOP pamphlet argues that some earmarks are okay.
By on Jan 28th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
GOP pamphlet argues that some earmarks are okay.
Despite tough talk on earmarks by President Bush and various conservatives, at the House GOP annual retreat on Friday, members “found an impassioned document on their chairs…making the case that some earmarks are okay.” The front of the packet “carried a campaign poster from the 1978 campaign of Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.),” strongly suggesting the hand of the embattled ranking Republican on the Appropriations Committee.
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
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
McCain
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
Terrorism
Veterans
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
‘And war cometh on children of America’
Republican presidential frontrunner John McCain has raised public concern after announcing Washington would be going to other wars.
“It’s a tough war we’re in. It’s not going to be over right away. There’s going to be other wars,” McCain made the comments at a campaign in Florida on Sunday.
“I’m sorry to tell you, there’s going to be other wars. We will never surrender but there will be other wars,” he cautioned the crowd of his supporters in a bleak tone.
He did not elaborate on who Washington would be going to war with but went on to psych up the crowd for the consequences of current and future battles.
“And right now – we’re gonna have a lot of PTSD [post traumatic stress disorder] to treat, my friends, a lot of combat wounds that have to do with these terrible explosive IEDs that inflict such severe wounds,” he said.
The Arizona Senator’s campaign message of endless wars raises concerns over his foreign and national security policies. McCain earlier claimed that the US military could stay in Iraq for maybe a hundred years.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=40699§ionid=3510203
January 28th, 2008 at 12:02 pmHhhmm… slightly off topic…
January 28th, 2008 at 12:05 pmIOKIYAR
January 28th, 2008 at 12:05 pm“some earmarks are ok’
Translation: “only earmarks for, by and to Republicans are good”
in other words: Democratic earmarks, bad. Republican earmarks, good.
January 28th, 2008 at 12:06 pmYeah and lobbyists are people, too. -Hillary
January 28th, 2008 at 12:09 pmI’m not a fan of earmarks by Rebs or Dems. Federal government spends too much as it is. We need a good push for the 10th Amendment.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
January 28th, 2008 at 12:10 pmRiiiight… “America’s CEO” is going to rein in the spending… after running the biggest deficit in the history of the country…
January 28th, 2008 at 12:12 pmgoon_golly believes that the executive branch doesn’t have enough authority and wants to allow it to make final decisions about how to spend money that has been lawfully alloted by Congress. Why does goon_golly hate the Constitution?
January 28th, 2008 at 12:13 pm“War on earmarks?”
Sounds expensive.
At minimum, the Administration will require a central office of Office of National Anti-Earmark Policy, a few satellite offices in the major population centers, a foreign attache office in Paris and a few hundred grand for positive spin from Armstron Williams et al.
January 28th, 2008 at 12:15 pmAnd that’s just to get started, CitiDC…
January 28th, 2008 at 12:17 pmSo you are all agreed that government spends too much?
January 28th, 2008 at 12:18 pmFunny how libs think it’s o.k. for Congress to try to override the Commander in Chief by de-funding a military action, but cry ‘fowl†when the Chief Executive says he will issue executive orders to Federal Agencies to not spend pork money. You can’t have it both ways.
Comment by good_golly — January 28, 2008 @ 12:20 pm
Get a copy of the Constitution, goon, and figure out which branch is responsible for the purse strings. It is not the role of the Executive to determine what it “pork” and we certainly have no reason to believe that their judgment (particularly this administration) is honest, fair or appropriate.
And it’s “foul”, bozo.
January 28th, 2008 at 12:22 pmApples and oranges, g_g. You’re being disingenuous.
Brusch has run up the biggest deficit in the history of country. I, for one, only want to see him gone. I have ZERO (that’s one more than minus one, ya know) degree of interest in anything this corrupt, incompetent, delusional little fraud has to say anymore.
January 28th, 2008 at 12:24 pmSpeaking of pork, you can put lipstick on a pig, but that doesn’t mean he’s Presidential. You annoy the public, it’s costly and you still have a Pig in office.
January 28th, 2008 at 12:24 pmGood point, gummitch. Congress is supposed to control spending, not the WH. Looks like yet another attempt to accrue more unconstitutional powers to Brusch.
January 28th, 2008 at 12:25 pm“…but cry ‘fowl ”
Comment by good_golly — January 28, 2008 @ 12:20 pm
Congress does bird imitations? Well, I admit they ARE kind of chicken when it comes to standing up to the exec branch.
January 28th, 2008 at 12:25 pmSo you are all agreed that government spends too much?
Comment by VA Voter — January 28, 2008 @ 12:18 pm
I smell a black-and-white troll…
January 28th, 2008 at 12:26 pmI smell a black-and-white troll…
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — January 28, 2008 @ 12:26 pm
Otherwise known as a skunk.
January 28th, 2008 at 12:27 pmVA Voter, no one here takes you seriously.
January 28th, 2008 at 12:28 pm- TARD!
Comment by republicans hate facts — January 28, 2008
How about making your point and not resort to name calling.
January 28th, 2008 at 12:29 pmVA Voter, no one here takes you seriously.
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — January 28, 2008 @ 12:28 pm
And they shouldn’t. But I do have a right to express my views.
January 28th, 2008 at 12:30 pmIsn’t this the same retreat that’s funded by lobbyists? And isn’t this a little bit like having tobacco companies fund seminars on smoking and health?
I’m all for getting rid of earmarks altogether. An earmark is basically a grant, and I’m uncomfortable with grant decisions being made by people who are in constant need of campaign funds.
1) Let federal grants be decided by federal agencies. People who don’t have to run for re-election are less vulnerable to being bought. Grant-worthiness can be decided by clearer heads.
2) Let federal agencies be funded by Congress (as part of the federal budget), without specific instructions for allocation of funds.
3) Let the president stay the hell out of it (except of course, for the input he normally provides for the federal budget).
Simple enough? Of course, lobbyists will hate it.
January 28th, 2008 at 12:33 pmComment by good_golly — January 28, 2008 @ 12:20 pm
What point are you trying to make? The POTUS is the leader of the military, but Congress funds it. Its known as a “check and balance”
January 28th, 2008 at 12:34 pmInteresting comment… “I have a right to express my views… but no one should take it seriously…”
Fascinating example of self-deprecation.
Are you actually acknowledging that you’re not here to make a valid point?
January 28th, 2008 at 12:35 pmThat’s dumb,
NO earmarks are ok. The government already takes most our money for socialist entitlement programs. Why do they feel they need even more money for earmarks?
January 28th, 2008 at 12:38 pmYou can’t have it both ways.
Comment by good_golly — January 28, 2008 @ 12:20 pm
Um…actually, you can. The legislative branch is in charge of spending the money, not the president. Which means that Congress can fund a war, defund a war, or spend pork money to their heart’s content. All the president can do is veto any legislation he doesn’t like.
The president cannot fund a war by himself, nor can he spend pork money by himself. He can request that Congress allocate money for pet projects, but Congress is under no obligation to comply.
January 28th, 2008 at 12:39 pmSimple enough? Of course, lobbyists will hate it.
Comment by missmolly — January 28, 2008 @ 12:33 pm
Lobbyist would love it. How hard is it to pay off a government worker.
January 28th, 2008 at 12:40 pmComment by republicans hate facts — January 28, 2008
I’m new to this site. Is all you do is name calling? By my count I’ve made 3 points on this subject and you have only name called. Why is that?
January 28th, 2008 at 12:46 pmNO earmarks are ok. The government already takes most our money for socialist entitlement programs. Why do they feel they need even more money for earmarks?
Comment by Roger_Roger — January 28, 2008 @ 12:38 pm
I agree with you on “no earmarks” — although I suspect for different reasons.
As far as your assertion that “the government already takes most our money for socialist entitlement programs”, this is wrong on a couple of counts. First — the government doesn’t take “most” of your money (although I admit that come tax time it can feel that way). Second — only about a quarter of that money goes to Health and Human Services (which I assume is what you mean by “socialist entitlement programs”). Roughly another quarter goes to defense (not counting what we are borrowing from China), and another quarter or so goes to paying interest on the national debt. The rest goes to everything else.
You are also assuming that all earmarks go for “socialist entitlement programs”. This is incorrect, although some earmarks do go for the welfare of communities (such as basketball programs to keep kids out of gangs, for example). But earmarks are just as likely to go for roads, bridges, scientific research, etc.
January 28th, 2008 at 12:48 pmComment by VA Voter — January 28, 2008 @ 12:46 pm
Ignore the name calling.
What exactly is your point? You reference the 10th Amendment, so I take it you feel strongly about state’s rights?
January 28th, 2008 at 12:53 pmLobbyist would love it. How hard is it to pay off a government worker.
Comment by VA Voter — January 28, 2008 @ 12:40 pm
Apparently, it’s harder than buying an elected official. Because federal agencies are capable of issuing grants NOW, lobbyists wouldn’t even be wasting their time with Congress if they could be paying civil servants to get grants for their clients, if your scenario is to be believed.
However, bribing government officials is illegal, which is why lobbyists prefer to deal with members of Congress. Payoffs there can be easily disguised as campaign contributions.
January 28th, 2008 at 12:53 pmHow hard is it to pay off a government worker.
Comment by VA Voter — January 28, 2008 @ 12:40 pm
Well, in the case of GOOPers, it would appear to be waaaay toooo easy.
January 28th, 2008 at 12:54 pmThe government already takes most our money for socialist entitlement programs. Why do they feel they need even more money for earmarks?
Comment by Roger_Roger — January 28, 2008 @ 12:38 pm
Look at the budget, most of the money is going to the war, foreign aid and corporate welfare. That adds up to more than is spent on people welfare and foodstamps together.
Do you ever get anything correct in your posts?
January 28th, 2008 at 1:02 pmWelfare should be gone. Corperate or otherwise.
January 28th, 2008 at 1:14 pmWhy does goon_golly hate the Constitution.
comment by gummitch @ 13:13 pm
Because,“the Constitution is just a God-damn piece of paper.”
January 28th, 2008 at 1:15 pmYou can’t have it both ways.
Comment by good_golly — January 28, 2008 @ 12:20 pm
Um…actually, you can. The legislative branch is in charge of spending the money, not the president. Which means that Congress can fund a war, defund a war, or spend pork money to their heart’s content. All the president can do is veto any legislation he doesn’t like.
The president cannot fund a war by himself, nor can he spend pork money by himself. He can request that Congress allocate money for pet projects, but Congress is under no obligation to comply.
Comment by missmolly
People who cannot pass an 8th grade civics class should not be allowed to vote.
January 28th, 2008 at 1:17 pmWelfare should be gone. Corperate or otherwise.
Comment by VA Voter — January 28, 2008 @ 1:14 pm
Thanks for being so vague.
January 28th, 2008 at 1:23 pmWelfare should be gone. Corperate or otherwise.
Comment by VA Voter — January 28, 2008 @ 1:14 pm
Then why don’t you rail against the Republican 109th congress ( and Bush who signed it) who gave 15 billion to the OIL Industry, that has made record profits in the last 2 years and is about to set a record for 2008 and we are still in January, from gouging the public? Where is your outrage over that?
January 28th, 2008 at 1:26 pmComment by Roger_Roger — January 28, 2008 @ 12:38 pm
Do you ever get anything correct in your posts?
Comment by Wayne — January 28, 2008 @ 1:02 pm
Never. Getting things right gets in the way of supporting BushCo.
January 28th, 2008 at 1:30 pmWelfare should be gone. Corperate or otherwise.
Comment by VA Voter — January 28, 2008 @ 1:14 pm
I see. And which government programs do you define as “welfare”?
January 28th, 2008 at 1:33 pmWelfare should be gone. Corperate or otherwise.
Comment by VA Voter — January 28, 2008 @ 1:14 pm
Well, in seven years BushCo has taken great strides to destroy this nation’s welfare.
Congratulations. You backed the right horse for your aims.
January 28th, 2008 at 1:36 pmSo, no troll is outraged by the oil industry being given 15 billion in corporate welfare. Figures…..
January 28th, 2008 at 1:41 pmWelfare should be gone. Corperate or otherwise.
Comment by VA Voter — January 28, 2008 @ 1:14 pm
I see. And which government programs do you define as “welfare�
Comment by missmolly
Whichever ones Bush says are welfare.
January 28th, 2008 at 1:41 pmWelfare should be gone. Corperate or otherwise.
Comment by VA Voter — January 28, 2008 @ 1:14 pm
I see. And which government programs do you define as “welfare�
Comment by missmolly
Whichever ones Bush says are welfare.
Comment by shoeless — January 28, 2008 @ 1:41 pm
I can see how this WOULD save the kool-aid drinkers from that pesky chore called thinking…
January 28th, 2008 at 1:44 pmI can see how this WOULD save the kool-aid drinkers from that pesky chore called thinking…
Comment by missmolly
Thinking would save the Bushbots from drinking the Kool-aid.
January 28th, 2008 at 1:50 pmThinking would save the Bushbots from drinking the Kool-aid.
Comment by shoeless — January 28, 2008 @ 1:50 pm
Yeah, but it would give them awful headaches.
January 28th, 2008 at 1:52 pmThe point you are both missing is that in our system of “checks and balances†it takes both (in some cases, all three) branches of government. For example, Congress can fund a war, but it cannot force the President to send troops anywhere. On the other hand, if Congress de-funds a war, there isn’t much the President can do without those funds. With regard to Pork, Congress can choose to send money to a Federal Agency to fund a pork project, but the President can choose to direct the agency to not spend that money and not work on that project.
Comment by goon_golly — January 28, 2008 @ 1:49 pm
The responsibility of the Executive branch is to execute the laws, not decide after the fact that he doesn’t like them. He has the opportunity to veto a bill; he does not have a line item veto, which you’d apparently like to give him.
You’re badly confused about the Constitution, goon.
January 28th, 2008 at 2:05 pmResponse to 66: Good_golly, please set forth the specific case law supporting your interpretation on this point. ______ Oh, there is none. Another example of changing the constitution by saying: “Well it sounds like a good idea and nothing in that piece of paper called the constitution says that I cannot.”
January 28th, 2008 at 2:08 pmCongress can, for example, send $50 mil. to the DOT to build a bridge across the open plains, but the President, in turn, can issue an Executive order to the DOT to not build that bridge and not spend that money.
Comment by good_golly
Good idea. Maybe you can call Bush and get him to stop this one.
Dennis Hastert’s Real Estate Investments
House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert has used an Illinois trust to invest in real estate near the proposed route of the Prairie Parkway, a highway project for which he’s secured $207 million in earmarked appropriations. The trust has already transferred 138 acres of land to a real estate development firm that has plans to build a 1,600-home community, located less than six miles from the north-south connector Hastert has championed in the House.
January 28th, 2008 at 2:17 pmCongress can, for example, send $50 mil. to the DOT to build a bridge across the open plains, but the President, in turn, can issue an Executive order to the DOT to not build that bridge and not spend that money. On the other hand, the President cannot order the bridge to be built without funding from the Congress. In this case, it takes two (branches) to tango.
Comment by good_golly — January 28, 2008 @ 1:54 pm
Wrong, if he signed the bill, it is law. and it is his constitutional duty to follow the law. He does not have line item veto abilities, it is either veto or sign.
Go back to civics class 101
January 28th, 2008 at 2:25 pmIt’s a bit more complicated than Civics 101, Wayne, but I think you can follow along if you really try.
Comment by good_golly — January 28, 2008 @ 2:30 pm
F_ck you, you sanctimonious twit
January 28th, 2008 at 2:32 pmGo back to civics class 101
Comment by Wayne
They won’t let him. You only get three chances to pass the class.
January 28th, 2008 at 2:32 pmAnd they shouldn’t. But I do have a right to express my views.
Comment by VA Voter — January 28, 2008 @ 12:30 pm
That’s funny. It’s funny because all of the Nazi trolls that come here with the expectation of “rights” to freely voice their opinion are the same Nazis that hope anybody that wears a “provacative” t-shirt gets banned or the same ones over at “redstate” that censor any one with an opposing view point.
The Nazi right wing loons love free speech as long as they are the only ones that get to use it. And then they cry “Fowl”(sic) when they get treated the way they treat everyone else.
Hysterical! ;)
January 28th, 2008 at 2:40 pm….. now, off to find that “redstate†site you hate so much. But never fear, I’ll be back. I prefer to post where I am in the minority, rather than being a mindless “yes man/woman.â€
Comment by good_golly — January 28, 2008 @ 2:51 pm
Isn’t she cute? On a brighter note… I did get her to go away if only for a little while. ;)
January 28th, 2008 at 3:05 pmnow, off to find that “redstate†site you hate so much. But never fear, I’ll be back. I prefer to post where I am in the minority, rather than being a mindless “yes man/woman.â€
Comment by good_golly — January 28, 2008 @ 2:51 pm
Wow. Goon_golly is even confused about its own gender. That must be tough.
January 28th, 2008 at 3:12 pmI’m back. I may agree with more of what is posted at redstate than here, but I wasn’t all that impressed.
Comment by good_golly
Why would you be? The things you typically agree with are not impressive.
January 28th, 2008 at 3:13 pmshoeless; I think it’s called gender dysphoria.
January 28th, 2008 at 3:16 pmooops! I meant to address gummitch. %(#** Mondays!
January 28th, 2008 at 3:17 pmI am … a mindless “yes man/woman.â€
Comment by good_golly — January 28, 2008 @ 2:51 pm
Wow. Goon_golly is even confused about its own gender. That must be tough.
Comment by gummitch
gummitch,
gg isn’t confused. Those are it’s genders.
January 28th, 2008 at 3:19 pmI’m back. I may agree with more of what is posted at redstate than here, but I wasn’t all that impressed.
Comment by good_golly — January 28, 2008 @ 3:09 pm
Well, it was too much to hope the she would be distracted by all of the shiny objects over there and stay for awhile…
But i’ll bet that she didn’t bother to try to point out any of their errors over there to see how quickly the would ban her.
January 28th, 2008 at 3:34 pmGood_golly has finally and irrevocably proven him/herself to be fool and an ignorant idiot. A conference report must be approved by both houses of congress. The purpose of a conference report is to resolve differences in legislation as passed by the House and Senate. It is not a report that goes to the president as an explanatory statement. My source is the Majority Office of the House Committee on Rules. Now let us see your source.
As to the authority of the Congress to spend the funds for the general welfare, I would point to the constitution, Article 1 Section 8 Clause 1. Also see: United States Supreme Court in United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936); Chas. Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548 (1937); Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937); and South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987).
Now, let us see the case law or other authority that you are relying upon that substantiate the right of the President to order agencies to refuse to spend such funds.
The constitutional analysis is the same as that which was presented under the line item veto which had been passed as part of the Taxpayer Relief Act. The majority opinion, as written by Justice Stevens, in Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998) held:
Indeed, the court noted that only one method could give the president such authority:
Now good_golly, let us hear you justify your rather infantile explanation of a Conference Report. Let us see how you get around the Court’s holding in the Clinton case which clearly rejected the authority of the President to reject spending items even with the express authority of Congress let alone under some implied right to impound funds.
January 28th, 2008 at 3:37 pm‘Sens. Sam Brownback and Kit Bond used earmarks last year to direct about $1 million to an area group “empowering the un-churched urban poor for the kingdom of Christ.”‘
http://www.religionandsocialpolicy.org/newsletters/article.cfm?id=7592
January 28th, 2008 at 4:44 pm