Republican Hypocrisy Is Totally Disgusting

[EV_Ares]

Just a clip in article today about earmarks & note McConnell. Also, note our Dem McCaskill who is one of a few with complete honesty about earmarks.
--------------------------------

Even longtime ear-markers, like Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, are now decrying them.

McConnell has said he will oppose the spending bill because it contains earmarks. Some are his own, to the tune of $86.1 million for 42 projects in Kentucky, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense.


“The earmarking process is arbitrary and flawed, and our nation simply can’t afford this kind of spending right now,” said Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri, who has refused earmarks since she came to the Senate in 2006.
“Anyone who tells you they are opposed to earmarks and concerned about our national debt, but still has earmarks in this bill cannot be taken seriously,” she said.

Neither Brownback nor anyone from his office could be reached for comment about the $40 million for the bio-defense lab. A spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security , which would oversee the lab, declined to comment.

link to entire article: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/12/15/1975397/despite-vows-to-curb-earmarks.html

Also included in the 2011 bill are more than $10 million in agricultural earmarks from Brownback.

[Demeter]

1. Well, They Don't Do It For Aesthetic Reasons

What did you expect?

[EV_Ares]

2. Out of the republicans I expected what has occurred and it is disgusting.

[monmouth]

3. Barnacle on MoJoe this a.m. stated these are not serious people. He

received no argument from anyone. He and Joe and even Mica really went after them ....

[northoftheborder]

4. Cornyn and Thune were asked point blank by reporters yesterday.....

......about their own earmarks, and although they looked slightly uncomfortable, they insisted it is was OK to have earmarks because they were voting against the bills. Said it twice, then walked out. The disconnect and hypocrisy is extremely painful to watch. AAARGGGG.

[Volaris]

5. so basically what they said was....

WE put those earmarks in there so that WHEN it passes without our vote, we still get ours, and the best part is, we can claim somebody else just gave us that money against OUR better judgment.

Isn't there some way to designate a general pile of money as an "earmark budget" every year, and then split it up among members of congress to distribute as each congress person sees fit? Like each House of Congress gets half, and then each Sen. gets an equal amount, and the House half gets doled out based on population? That way, everyone gets to still "bring home the bacon" for their constituents, the elected officials can still use it to grease whatever wheels might be getting squeaky, and the local people get to hold accountable any elected idiot who didn't spend it wisely. Want to spend 2 years worth of earmark money on a bridge to nowhere in Alaska? Fine with me, I don't live there, spend your cut however you want, but don't come back and ask for more. Congress has more important things to do with its' debate time than dicking around with your pet project.
And if anyone has any other ways to circumvent this kind of idiocy, I would love to hear them=)d

[northoftheborder]

13. I heard a new explanation of where "earmark" money comes from.....

It was explained that this money is diverted from the general funds which have already been allocated to various departments; it is not additional money on top of the regular budgeted amounts. At least that is what was said. I really don't know. I think the something like the allocation explained above might be considered; there should be some rational way of spreading around various earmarks amongst the congress people and senators. As is, it is just a political one-upsmanship game with the more "powerful" members getting the most.

[Volaris]

14. I cant offer any insight into whether

earmark money comes from the general fund or not(I suspect that it would)but to implement the above system in any legitimate way, the funds would have to belong to that particular congressional SEAT on an annual basis, and the sitting congress-critter would have say over what it gets spent on in their district/state, with the caveat that it MUST be SPENT, and on something other than campaigning or their office budget. How "earmark" money for a district gets spent should be up to the people of that district, the federal congress shouldn't CARE whether that money gets spent on bridge A or tunnel B, thats debate needs to happen at the LOCAL level I.E., within the effected district.
I would also think that a standing "Earmark Budget" would have to be something simple, like say, 5% of last years TOTAL Federal budget, and divide it up from there...that way its easy for the Citizen Masses to kind of have an idea of how it works.....
But that would (probably) first require the passage of a Balanced Budget, so I'm guessing it will never happen=)lol.

[bullwinkle428]

6. On NPR, the Pukes claimed their earmarks were okay because

they were already vetted, whatever the fuck that means! :banghead:

[Bandit]

7. There is absolutely nothing wrong with earmarks

It is the job of our Senators and Representatives to secure funding for State projects that are deemed important. The problem is the abuse of the process. And by stopping earmarks they are not stopping spending. The same amount of money will still be distibuted throughout the nation...It is just all for show...

[TheKentuckian]

8. Agreed but the games they play with them are disgusting.

[EV_Ares]

9. Same as The Kentuckian; what earmarks are to be used for is OK, there really are bridges, roads,

schools & other public projects that need to be repaired, updated or built and these projects take people which is jobs for people.

However, as you yourself have said, "The problem is the abuse of the process". It is like everything else in DC, it needs to be tweaked or restructered so each senator, each representative has to identify each & every dollar & what it is to be used for and justified.

[kgnu_fan]

10. You know, democrats also need to stop hypocrisy... we need to clean up!

[GeorgeGist]

11. Hypocrisy is disgusting ...

especially by a President.

[mstinamotorcity]

12. Hypocrisy......

they are tellers of Fables.Lies.