The most ethical Congress
strikes again! (HT Gary at LFR)
"U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said last year that she would be happy to ``do away with'' the practice of funding members' pet projects, though she knew it wasn't ``realistic.'' This year proves how right she was.
Thousands of so-called earmarks still adorn spending bills, including 15 from Pelosi in a defense measure. Their continued popularity shows how difficult it is to change a system that allows members to bring federal money home for their constituents. Polls show Democrats aren't getting credit for what they say is a major overhaul of the earmark system. "
To be fair to the Speaker, I knew (as Bloomberg did) that the promised reforms were not going to happen. They are too entrenched on both sides to ever completely do away with earmarks. Anyone who thought that the Dems could actually get rid of earmarks was deluding themselves. However, the "reform" bill that the Dems finally did get passed was actually a step in the WRONG direction.
"Instead of exposing and eradicating secretive pork-barrel spending the bill has created new ways to hide that spending. The bill, (Sen. Tom) Coburn said, makes earmark disclosure voluntary, not mandatory. Also, the requirement of 67 Senate votes to suspend the earmark disclosure rule was changed to 40 votes - less than a majority.
The language prohibiting a Member or staff from promoting earmarks from which that individual personally would benefit was eviscerated completely. So was the provision prohibiting a Member from trading votes for earmarks. Coburn was also angry that the provision requiring a Member to disclose earmarks on the Internet 48 hours before a vote was changed to "as soon as practical." Other provisions of the bill were weakened as well, limiting the quantity of disclosure and transparency required of politicians and defeating the original purpose of the bill.
The Washington Examiner editorialized that the bill failed to address the core issue of corruption caused by earmarks. Coburn said that earmarks have been at the heart of recent scandals which have sent Members of Congress to prison and brought others under investigation." (emphasis mine)
In case you are wondering, the entire Minnesota delegation voted for this bill.
"U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said last year that she would be happy to ``do away with'' the practice of funding members' pet projects, though she knew it wasn't ``realistic.'' This year proves how right she was.
Thousands of so-called earmarks still adorn spending bills, including 15 from Pelosi in a defense measure. Their continued popularity shows how difficult it is to change a system that allows members to bring federal money home for their constituents. Polls show Democrats aren't getting credit for what they say is a major overhaul of the earmark system. "
To be fair to the Speaker, I knew (as Bloomberg did) that the promised reforms were not going to happen. They are too entrenched on both sides to ever completely do away with earmarks. Anyone who thought that the Dems could actually get rid of earmarks was deluding themselves. However, the "reform" bill that the Dems finally did get passed was actually a step in the WRONG direction.
"Instead of exposing and eradicating secretive pork-barrel spending the bill has created new ways to hide that spending. The bill, (Sen. Tom) Coburn said, makes earmark disclosure voluntary, not mandatory. Also, the requirement of 67 Senate votes to suspend the earmark disclosure rule was changed to 40 votes - less than a majority.
The language prohibiting a Member or staff from promoting earmarks from which that individual personally would benefit was eviscerated completely. So was the provision prohibiting a Member from trading votes for earmarks. Coburn was also angry that the provision requiring a Member to disclose earmarks on the Internet 48 hours before a vote was changed to "as soon as practical." Other provisions of the bill were weakened as well, limiting the quantity of disclosure and transparency required of politicians and defeating the original purpose of the bill.
The Washington Examiner editorialized that the bill failed to address the core issue of corruption caused by earmarks. Coburn said that earmarks have been at the heart of recent scandals which have sent Members of Congress to prison and brought others under investigation." (emphasis mine)
In case you are wondering, the entire Minnesota delegation voted for this bill.
Labels: Hypocrisy
posted by The Lady Logician at
7:05 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home