Full Version: Democrats and earmark data coverup
QUOTE
Earmark Cover-Up
The Congressional Research Service is helping its masters hide wasteful spending.
Monday, March 26, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT
Nothing highlighted Congress's spending problem in last year's election more than earmarks, the special projects like Alaska's "Bridge to Nowhere" that members drop into last-minute conference reports leaving no opportunity to debate or amend them. Voters opted for change in Congress, but on earmarks it looks as if they'll only be getting more smoke and mirrors.
Democrats promised reform and instituted "a moratorium" on all earmarks until the system was cleaned up. Now the appropriations committees are privately accepting pork-barrel requests again. But curiously, the scorekeeper on earmarks, the Library of Congress's Congressional Research Service (CRS)--a publicly funded, nonpartisan federal agency--has suddenly announced it will no longer respond to requests from members of Congress on the size, number or background of earmarks. "They claim it'll be transparent, but they're taking away the very data that lets us know what's really happening," says Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn. "I'm convinced the appropriations committees are flexing their muscles with CRS."
Indeed, the shift in CRS policy represents a dramatic break with its 12-year practice of supplying members with earmark data. "CRS will no longer identify earmarks for individual programs, activities, entities, or individuals," stated a private Feb. 22 directive from CRS Director Daniel Mulhollan.
Just as Democrats take over with promises to rain in earmarks it seems they are doing exactly the opposite AND trying to hide same by stopping the Congressional Research Service from identifying the earmarks
The Congressional Research Service is helping its masters hide wasteful spending.
Monday, March 26, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT
Nothing highlighted Congress's spending problem in last year's election more than earmarks, the special projects like Alaska's "Bridge to Nowhere" that members drop into last-minute conference reports leaving no opportunity to debate or amend them. Voters opted for change in Congress, but on earmarks it looks as if they'll only be getting more smoke and mirrors.
Democrats promised reform and instituted "a moratorium" on all earmarks until the system was cleaned up. Now the appropriations committees are privately accepting pork-barrel requests again. But curiously, the scorekeeper on earmarks, the Library of Congress's Congressional Research Service (CRS)--a publicly funded, nonpartisan federal agency--has suddenly announced it will no longer respond to requests from members of Congress on the size, number or background of earmarks. "They claim it'll be transparent, but they're taking away the very data that lets us know what's really happening," says Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn. "I'm convinced the appropriations committees are flexing their muscles with CRS."
Indeed, the shift in CRS policy represents a dramatic break with its 12-year practice of supplying members with earmark data. "CRS will no longer identify earmarks for individual programs, activities, entities, or individuals," stated a private Feb. 22 directive from CRS Director Daniel Mulhollan.
Just as Democrats take over with promises to rain in earmarks it seems they are doing exactly the opposite AND trying to hide same by stopping the Congressional Research Service from identifying the earmarks
Questions for the debate:
1. If you voted Democrat is this what you expected?
2. If you voted Republican are you surprised?
3. Is this business as usual or a step in the direction of actually increasing earmarks and allowing them to be hidden?
4. Will there be voter backlash? Will this type of waste effect the 08 election?
Let me link the entire editorial from which this is quoted.
Link
This decision seems to have come out of the blue from one man: Daniel Mulhollan. He made another controversial decision very recently.
Link
So what's going on? It's not at all clear to me. Mulhollan is shaking things up, and the reason is not obvious.
Pressure from Congress? Possible, although difficult to prove.
1. If you voted Democrat is this what you expected?
2. If you voted Republican are you surprised?
N/A
3. Is this business as usual or a step in the direction of actually increasing earmarks and allowing them to be hidden?
Let's back up a bit and get some basic information on earmarks.
Link
So, we don't know exactly what we're talking about. Whatever it might be, most of it isn't a matter of controversy. The real question might be, will this allow more "pork" -- "bad" earmarks -- to go by without notice. Maybe a little, although there will always be watchdog groups on the alert.
4. Will there be voter backlash? Will this type of waste effect the 08 election?
No. No matter how much people speak out against pork, it will always exist, no matter who is in charge. It has never had any effect on any national election in the past; why should it now? The current Democratic majority in Congress did not come about because of this issue; this issue will not sweep it out of office.
Link
This decision seems to have come out of the blue from one man: Daniel Mulhollan. He made another controversial decision very recently.
Link
QUOTE
New rules at the Congressional Research Service could further restrict CRS reports from public view.
CRS Director Daniel Mulhollan wrote a memo this week requiring that CRS employees get approval from divisional managers before releasing reports to “non-congressional audiences,” which include executive branch officials, state and local government workers and reporters.
CRS Director Daniel Mulhollan wrote a memo this week requiring that CRS employees get approval from divisional managers before releasing reports to “non-congressional audiences,” which include executive branch officials, state and local government workers and reporters.
So what's going on? It's not at all clear to me. Mulhollan is shaking things up, and the reason is not obvious.
Pressure from Congress? Possible, although difficult to prove.
1. If you voted Democrat is this what you expected?
2. If you voted Republican are you surprised?
N/A
3. Is this business as usual or a step in the direction of actually increasing earmarks and allowing them to be hidden?
Let's back up a bit and get some basic information on earmarks.
Link
QUOTE
The CRS points out that there is no widely agreed upon definition of an earmark, and that definitions tend to vary depending on the type of bill . . .
Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) considers 'earmark' to be an ambiguous and neutral term . . .
The vast majority of earmarks are not controversial.
Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) considers 'earmark' to be an ambiguous and neutral term . . .
The vast majority of earmarks are not controversial.
So, we don't know exactly what we're talking about. Whatever it might be, most of it isn't a matter of controversy. The real question might be, will this allow more "pork" -- "bad" earmarks -- to go by without notice. Maybe a little, although there will always be watchdog groups on the alert.
4. Will there be voter backlash? Will this type of waste effect the 08 election?
No. No matter how much people speak out against pork, it will always exist, no matter who is in charge. It has never had any effect on any national election in the past; why should it now? The current Democratic majority in Congress did not come about because of this issue; this issue will not sweep it out of office.
3. Is this business as usual or a step in the direction of actually increasing earmarks and allowing them to be hidden?
Business as usual. I wouldn't expect heavy pork from libertarians, but the other two parties believe in porking up to get elected, and it seems to be working much better for those two parties than my own.
Pardon me if I offend anyone, but the left loves pork barrel spending, and in general, it isn't nearly as embarrassed about it as those more rightward politicians, who like it, too, but lie to their base about it. For the left, porky earmarks are just part of redistributing the wealth; moving more of middle class out of the taxpaying class, moving more of the poor onto the dole, and taking as much wealth away from the wealthy as possible to pay for everyone else's irresponsible behavior. That's what the left means by "fiscal conservatism", "fiscal responsibility", and "balancing the budget". For the most part, they don't hide it unless they need to veer to the center in a presidential campaign.
I don't blame the left for being true to its ideology-- I just disagree with it. Who I do blame are the deceitful backstabbers on the so-called right in the Republican Party who preach smaller government all day and night, then go to work to conspire behind closed doors to bring as much pork to their districts/states as possible via undebated earmarks.
4. Will there be voter backlash? Will this type of waste effect the 08 election?
If so, voters knew the incumbent Republicans lied about cutting government, and should already know (and will see again) the incumbent Democrats still want to progressively raise taxes to bloat government, so the only place to turn is a real fiscal libertarian. Out of the two major parties, there's only one such candidate running: Ron Paul. A vote for anyone else at the top of the ticket in either major party is a vote for runaway spending, excessive government expansion, massive tax burdens; either now through the Democrats' perversion of "fiscal responsibility", or later through the Neocons' massive interest on the naitonal debt.
If either Ron Paul or the Libertarian Party candidate is elected, then growth of oppressive taxation might receive some credit for a voter backlash when all is said and done. However, the way things look now, American voters appear to enjoy being taxed into poverty and nannied by Big Brother, if their choices in politicians are anything to go by. Of course, I don't believe that one bit. I believe most voters are fed up with both parties and have been since at least 1992; when they re-learned the lesson of 1860 that there's no room in today's Electoral College for more than two candidates.
What we really need before 2008, if possible (okay, a longshot), is the instant runnoff allowing voters to first separate the candidates for whom they might eventually vote from the candidates for whom they would never vote, then ordering the candidates they from best to worst. Computers can then automatically perform several rounds of runoffs without requiring anyone to return to the polls. Electronic touch-screen voting machines are well-suited to this task. Although some would like to scrap the electoral college at the same time, that wouldn't be necessary; state legislatures (some state amendments required) could simply decide to allot their electors based on an instant runoff instead of a plurality of one round of voting.
I really do hope that government waste will influence the 2008 election, but I doubt we'll see much change other than the monotonous shifting of tides from one big-government party to the other big-government party, at least not until we have automatic runnoffs for Presidential elections, merge election day with tax day, or voters forget what more than two candidates did to the 2000, 1992, and 1860 elections.
One last thing about Ron Paul. Every two years when his election rolls around, he travels his district stumping on how much pork he didn't spend; how he opposed spending in his own district and everywhere else as "the taxpayers' best friend". In spite of major offenses against him from his own Republican party a few years ago and a deep-pocketed DNC-backed Democrat last year who flooded the media with ads, Dr. Paul still had about 60% of the vote locked up so tight that no one else had a serious chance. If other Congressional candidates would dare follow his lead rather than wagering their futures on pork ears, they might just find themselves equally bulletproof.
Business as usual. I wouldn't expect heavy pork from libertarians, but the other two parties believe in porking up to get elected, and it seems to be working much better for those two parties than my own.
Pardon me if I offend anyone, but the left loves pork barrel spending, and in general, it isn't nearly as embarrassed about it as those more rightward politicians, who like it, too, but lie to their base about it. For the left, porky earmarks are just part of redistributing the wealth; moving more of middle class out of the taxpaying class, moving more of the poor onto the dole, and taking as much wealth away from the wealthy as possible to pay for everyone else's irresponsible behavior. That's what the left means by "fiscal conservatism", "fiscal responsibility", and "balancing the budget". For the most part, they don't hide it unless they need to veer to the center in a presidential campaign.
I don't blame the left for being true to its ideology-- I just disagree with it. Who I do blame are the deceitful backstabbers on the so-called right in the Republican Party who preach smaller government all day and night, then go to work to conspire behind closed doors to bring as much pork to their districts/states as possible via undebated earmarks.
4. Will there be voter backlash? Will this type of waste effect the 08 election?
If so, voters knew the incumbent Republicans lied about cutting government, and should already know (and will see again) the incumbent Democrats still want to progressively raise taxes to bloat government, so the only place to turn is a real fiscal libertarian. Out of the two major parties, there's only one such candidate running: Ron Paul. A vote for anyone else at the top of the ticket in either major party is a vote for runaway spending, excessive government expansion, massive tax burdens; either now through the Democrats' perversion of "fiscal responsibility", or later through the Neocons' massive interest on the naitonal debt.
If either Ron Paul or the Libertarian Party candidate is elected, then growth of oppressive taxation might receive some credit for a voter backlash when all is said and done. However, the way things look now, American voters appear to enjoy being taxed into poverty and nannied by Big Brother, if their choices in politicians are anything to go by. Of course, I don't believe that one bit. I believe most voters are fed up with both parties and have been since at least 1992; when they re-learned the lesson of 1860 that there's no room in today's Electoral College for more than two candidates.
What we really need before 2008, if possible (okay, a longshot), is the instant runnoff allowing voters to first separate the candidates for whom they might eventually vote from the candidates for whom they would never vote, then ordering the candidates they from best to worst. Computers can then automatically perform several rounds of runoffs without requiring anyone to return to the polls. Electronic touch-screen voting machines are well-suited to this task. Although some would like to scrap the electoral college at the same time, that wouldn't be necessary; state legislatures (some state amendments required) could simply decide to allot their electors based on an instant runoff instead of a plurality of one round of voting.
I really do hope that government waste will influence the 2008 election, but I doubt we'll see much change other than the monotonous shifting of tides from one big-government party to the other big-government party, at least not until we have automatic runnoffs for Presidential elections, merge election day with tax day, or voters forget what more than two candidates did to the 2000, 1992, and 1860 elections.
One last thing about Ron Paul. Every two years when his election rolls around, he travels his district stumping on how much pork he didn't spend; how he opposed spending in his own district and everywhere else as "the taxpayers' best friend". In spite of major offenses against him from his own Republican party a few years ago and a deep-pocketed DNC-backed Democrat last year who flooded the media with ads, Dr. Paul still had about 60% of the vote locked up so tight that no one else had a serious chance. If other Congressional candidates would dare follow his lead rather than wagering their futures on pork ears, they might just find themselves equally bulletproof.
1. If you voted Democrat is this what you expected?
No. Honestly, I expect better from Democrats. Not with regards to spending, but with regards to honesty. I have to disagree slightly with Seamus here and note that after years of Republican rule I would expect the opposition to realize that coverups are almost always worse than the original crime.
I'm trying to find some more information on the subject. While the article linked in the OP is quite obviously biased it looks like there is some dishonesty here, and a lack of governmental transparency that seems almost Bush-like.
3. Is this business as usual or a step in the direction of actually increasing earmarks and allowing them to be hidden?
It's hard to say on the basis of the linked article.
4. Will there be voter backlash? Will this type of waste effect the 08 election?
While this is disappointing, it has nothing to do with the reasons voters overwhelmingly rejected the Republican party in 2006. I don't see the Republican party doing anything to effect those issues by 2008.
It'd be nice if there were a major political party that would help voters hold the Democrats' feet to t6he fire over this issue, but the Republican party sure isn't it.
No. Honestly, I expect better from Democrats. Not with regards to spending, but with regards to honesty. I have to disagree slightly with Seamus here and note that after years of Republican rule I would expect the opposition to realize that coverups are almost always worse than the original crime.
I'm trying to find some more information on the subject. While the article linked in the OP is quite obviously biased it looks like there is some dishonesty here, and a lack of governmental transparency that seems almost Bush-like.
3. Is this business as usual or a step in the direction of actually increasing earmarks and allowing them to be hidden?
It's hard to say on the basis of the linked article.
4. Will there be voter backlash? Will this type of waste effect the 08 election?
While this is disappointing, it has nothing to do with the reasons voters overwhelmingly rejected the Republican party in 2006. I don't see the Republican party doing anything to effect those issues by 2008.
It'd be nice if there were a major political party that would help voters hold the Democrats' feet to t6he fire over this issue, but the Republican party sure isn't it.
QUOTE
Grendel
While this is disappointing, it has nothing to do with the reasons voters overwhelmingly rejected the Republican party in 2006. I don't see the Republican party doing anything to effect those issues by 2008.
It'd be nice if there were a major political party that would help voters hold the Democrats' feet to t6he fire over this issue, but the Republican party sure isn't it.
While this is disappointing, it has nothing to do with the reasons voters overwhelmingly rejected the Republican party in 2006. I don't see the Republican party doing anything to effect those issues by 2008.
It'd be nice if there were a major political party that would help voters hold the Democrats' feet to t6he fire over this issue, but the Republican party sure isn't it.
It may be worse than you think since Democrats get an automatic pass from the mainstream media that Republicans don’t get. Check out the story below and tell me if this was a Republican Senator – not only would it have been on the front page of the NYT and elsewhere but she/he would have been asked to resign on the spot. Yet all we here are stupid allegations about “Halliburton” and this is clearly far worse.
The liberal media covers it own – and shafts the people again. The Dems IMO are every bit as bad as the Republicans – maybe worse.
ON CAPITOL HILL
Feinstein quits committee under war-profiteer cloud
Report documents military contracts for firms owned by senator's husband
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=54932
________________________________________
Posted: March 28, 2007
10:05 p.m. Eastern
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has abruptly walked away from her responsibilities with the Senate Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee after a report linked her votes to the financial well-being of her husband's companies, which received billions of dollars worth of military construction contracts she approved.
As reported in Metroactive, an online report from the Silicon Valley, Feinstein's resignation followed six years of subcommittee work during which time her alleged conflict of interest stemmed from her husband Richard C. Blum's ownership of Perini Corp. and URS Corp.
Feinstein, chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee, regularly reviewed and accepted contracts from her husband's companies for not only construction work for military bases, but also addressing "quality of life" issues for the veterans of the United States military services.
"As MILCON leader, Feinstein relished the details of military construction, even micromanaging one project at the level of its sewer design," wrote Peter Byrne in the report. "She regularly took junkets to military bases around the world to inspect construction projects, some of which were contracted to her husband's companies, Perini Corp. and URS Corp."
3. Is this business as usual or a step in the direction of actually increasing earmarks and allowing them to be hidden?
Seamus, I couldn't agree with you more here. The Left may be "tax and spend" but the Right is profligately "borrow and spend". I'm a little confused over the "earmarks" being referenced here; I don't see the conspiracy that seems implied by the article Ted referenced.
4. Will there be voter backlash? Will this type of waste effect the 08 election?
I'm a big proponent of instant run-off/rank order voting systems. It's an excellent way of representing a voter's preferences in a non-parliamentary democracy. Is there no way to make this a plank in either of the big two parties?
QUOTE(Seamus @ Apr 2 2007, 11:19 PM) 
Business as usual. I wouldn't expect heavy pork from libertarians, but the other two parties believe in porking up to get elected, and it seems to be working much better for those two parties than my own.
Pardon me if I offend anyone, but the left loves pork barrel spending, and in general, it isn't nearly as embarrassed about it as those more rightward politicians, who like it, too, but lie to their base about it. For the left, porky earmarks are just part of redistributing the wealth; moving more of middle class out of the taxpaying class, moving more of the poor onto the dole, and taking as much wealth away from the wealthy as possible to pay for everyone else's irresponsible behavior. That's what the left means by "fiscal conservatism", "fiscal responsibility", and "balancing the budget". For the most part, they don't hide it unless they need to veer to the center in a presidential campaign.
I don't blame the left for being true to its ideology-- I just disagree with it. Who I do blame are the deceitful backstabbers on the so-called right in the Republican Party who preach smaller government all day and night, then go to work to conspire behind closed doors to bring as much pork to their districts/states as possible via undebated earmarks.
Pardon me if I offend anyone, but the left loves pork barrel spending, and in general, it isn't nearly as embarrassed about it as those more rightward politicians, who like it, too, but lie to their base about it. For the left, porky earmarks are just part of redistributing the wealth; moving more of middle class out of the taxpaying class, moving more of the poor onto the dole, and taking as much wealth away from the wealthy as possible to pay for everyone else's irresponsible behavior. That's what the left means by "fiscal conservatism", "fiscal responsibility", and "balancing the budget". For the most part, they don't hide it unless they need to veer to the center in a presidential campaign.
I don't blame the left for being true to its ideology-- I just disagree with it. Who I do blame are the deceitful backstabbers on the so-called right in the Republican Party who preach smaller government all day and night, then go to work to conspire behind closed doors to bring as much pork to their districts/states as possible via undebated earmarks.
Seamus, I couldn't agree with you more here. The Left may be "tax and spend" but the Right is profligately "borrow and spend". I'm a little confused over the "earmarks" being referenced here; I don't see the conspiracy that seems implied by the article Ted referenced.
4. Will there be voter backlash? Will this type of waste effect the 08 election?
QUOTE(Seamus)
What we really need before 2008, if possible (okay, a longshot), is the instant runnoff
I'm a big proponent of instant run-off/rank order voting systems. It's an excellent way of representing a voter's preferences in a non-parliamentary democracy. Is there no way to make this a plank in either of the big two parties?
QUOTE(logophage @ Apr 11 2007, 05:40 PM)
I'm a big proponent of instant run-off/rank order voting systems. It's an excellent way of representing a voter's preferences in a non-parliamentary democracy. Is there no way to make this a plank in either of the big two parties?
At the risk of veering off-topic, I can only think of one way a major party would champion a plank that would result in the erosion of its own power-- that is a consistent, sizable third party that "spoils" several presidential elections in a row, so that the only way that party could win elections is with an automatic runoff. It would be most effective if this party had a name like "The Republican Spoiler Party", "the Democratic Spoiler Party", "The Liberal Party", or "The Conservative Party", so that it would be clear which party was suffering most from the presence of the third party. I doubt that's going to happen any time soon, so I wouldn't expect either major party to voluntarily give up power-- people with George Washington's sense of honor only come along every once in a while.QUOTE(logophage @ Apr 11 2007, 05:40 PM)
I'm a little confused over the "earmarks" being referenced here; I don't see the conspiracy that seems implied by the article Ted referenced.
As far as I can tell, Ted's article documents Feinstein's corruption and her husband's war profiteering. Like the CRS earmark secrecy, the MSM are ignoring the Democrat's corruption and war profiteering in favor of wall-to-wall coverage of Imus, Anna Nicole Smith, and the Attorneygate Scandal. I bet if you were to poll MSM audiences about which party's Senator recently resigned a post under suspicion war profiteering, and which party is embroiled in an earmark cover-up scandal, they'd unanimously assume it was the Republicans. The ability to hide earmarks is part of the reason they existed in the first place. When earmarks are exposed to the light of day, they hardly serve their purpose anymore. Until a creative politician finds some other way to slip pork into legislation unnoticed, the majority party has apparently pressured CRS into covering them up again, tighter than ever before. Don't worry, by the time the next election rolls around, they will have found some other way to sneak pork into law, so they can campaign on killing earmarks without really giving up business as usual. Most voters will probably believe them once MSM propagandists dismiss dissenters as ignorant partisan conspiracy theorist hypocrites; if for no other reason than to avoid being shut out from "big gets" like the DNC has done to FNC. The People then re-elect their porky incumbents, and continue to pay the price for their own apathy.
While the pork barrel rolls happily along...
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.