     |
Pork Is Out of Control
"Whenever You Rob Peter To Pay Paul, September 11, 2008 An Earmark for Alien Research? Andrew Roth From Rep. Dan Burton's blog: Visit Club For Growth: Club For Growth  on the Internet-Learn More-Click Photo As you will agree, efficient and effective operation of the Department of Defense (DOD) is critical to ensuring the security of our nation and the safety of our troops. Thankfully, because of the efforts of a few of my colleagues and I, from FY2006 to FY2007 the number of pork barrel projects decreased. But that didn’t stop a Representative from California from adding $1,000,000 to the DOD appropriations bill for an “alien” project to search for extraterrestrial intelligence. Nonsense like this provoked me to pledge not to request any earmarks for the 2009 fiscal budget. While Federal dollars can be used properly to support local areas, I had to set an example for my colleagues and pledge against a single cent of pork until the system is reformed. Would alien research get approved in an up or down vote on the House floor? If I were a betting man I'd say it wouldn't. THE HILL Coburn to slam wasteful spending at GOP convention By Susan Crabtree 08/21/08 Full article Susan Crabtree The Hill Excerpts: Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) has been given an evening speaking slot at the Republican National Convention and will focus his remarks on wasteful government spending and earmarks, his office said Thursday. Coburn, who, like GOP presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), is a vocal opponent of pork barrel spending, will address the convention on Tuesday night. Giving the Oklahoma senator a coveted evening slot will highlight McCain’s commitment to curbing wasteful spending and is seen as a nod to fiscal conservative voters fed up with the deficit spending that occurred during Republican control of Congress and continues under the Democratic majority.  Custom Search THE HILL Kevin Bogardus 08/18/08 12:58 PM [ET] Election Year Raises House Earmarks Full article House lawmakers with one eye on their reelection battles have approved more earmarks this year than last year, according to a budget watchdog group. An analysis by Taxpayers for Common Sense (TCS) found House lawmakers have approved $290 million more in earmarks this year. They’ve also approved about 200 more projects compared to last year. The local spending projects are included in appropriations bills approved by the House. Overall, the House has about $5.12 billion designated for earmarks in its spending bills. WALL STREET JOURNAL By PAT TOOMEY July 24, 2008; Page A13 Full article Pat Toomey WSJ Excerpts: If you want to know how out of touch Congress is on the issue of wasteful spending, listen to Florida Rep. John Mica defend his pork projects: "There's no way in hell I would support banning earmarks. That's our job, getting elected and making decisions." Mr. Mica is the most powerful Republican on the Transportation Committee. The idea that bringing home federal dollars is integral to a politician's job and essential to getting re-elected is a favorite of Republicans and Democrats alike. Three months ago, Hillary Clinton told the Pittsburgh Tribune Review, "I'm very proud of my earmarks. It's one of the reasons I won 67% of the vote, because I took care of my people." Alaska Republican Rep. Don Young, a professional earmarker, sees a direct correlation between earmarks and political longevity. "I listen and I provide. That's what I'm elected for. You show me a congressman who says, I'm not going to have any earmarks, and I'm not going to listen, and I'm not going to provide, and I'll show you a short-timer." There is just one problem with this theory. It is dead wrong.
EXAMINER.COM PHOENIX July 7, 2008 Rep. Michelle Bachmann: I gave up earmarks; why can’t other members of Congress?Full article Michelle Bachmann Examiner.Com Excerpts: WASHINGTON (Map, News) - Congress has yet to make reducing federal spending a priority. With the recent release of an analysis of this year’s congressional earmarks in House appropriation bills, it can still be said that Washington loves to spend the taxpayers’ money. Even with increased claims by several members of Congress — including Speaker Nancy Pelosi — that they would fight for “responsible government spending,” earmarks and out-of-control spending have continued to rise. Now more than ever, Congress needs to rein in its addictive pork-barrel splurging and swear off earmarks until a fair, transparent and fully reformed system is in place. GOP Senators Kill Earmark Vote Andrew Roth Visit Club For Growth Club For Growth Republican Senators were going to have an internal vote on whether or not they should adopt a tougher stance on earmarks. Andrew Moylan at NTU just found out that they aren't going to vote on it after all. Why? Because GOP appropriators didn't want to. Flake Gets Surprising Help on Earmarks Visit: Club For Growth David Keating CQ Today reports that California liberal Democratic Rep. Jackie "Speier, who has been in the House for just two months, says she has been so appalled by her fellow members’ earmarking ways that she has met with [Rep. Jeff] Flake [R-AZ] to discuss how they can cooperate to curtail the practice. 'The biggest surprise since I’ve been here have been earmarks,' Speier said. 'I didn’t realize how insidious it was and how deep it ran and how accepting so many people are of it.'" Let's hope this political odd couple can make some headway this year. Hot Air Blog Democrats more than double the pork pleasure posted at 10:15 am on June 7, 2008 by Ed Morrissey Full article Ed Morrissey Hot Air Blog Excerpts: Remember when Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid claimed that they would reduce pork and make what was left utterly transparent, after winning control of both chambers of Congress in 2006? Well, they certainly don’t, as an AP analysis published today shows. Transparency has improved somewhat, but earmark requests have escalated (emphasis mine): For all the outcry, most earmarks have much to commend them. Just because a lawmaker arranges a project for his home district doesn’t mean it isn’t worthy. But many also go to causes or projects that, on the surface, don’t appear all that necessary. Anti-pork watchdogs, for example, point to the $1.8 million in five earmarks for Chicago’s Shedd Aquarium, which ran $8 million in the black last year and has embarked on a four-year, $100 million fundraising campaign. With that kind of money, why should taxpayers fund a $400,000 program earmarked by Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama to help the aquarium conduct a program aimed at preventing juvenile delinquency, watchdog groups ask. THE HILL McConnell feels the heat on earmarks By Alexander Bolton Posted: 05/21/08 Full article Alexander Bolton The Hill Excerpts: Senate Republicans, including lieutenants to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), are pressuring Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to adopt earmark reform. The pressure puts McConnell in a tricky position. As leader, he must consider seriously the policy priorities of the party’s presumptive presidential nominee and Senate conservatives. But as a longtime member of the Appropriations Committee who has used earmarks to help constituents, he may worry about limiting his and his colleagues’ power of the purse. McConnell in January convened a special task force headed by Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) to recommend reform in response to mounting calls from GOP conservatives for action on the growth of federal earmarks. VISIT: Citizens Against Government Waste Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) has named Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) Porker of the Month for attempting to use the tax code to earmark a $2 billion subsidy for a commuter rail line between Manhattan and JFK Airport. Sen. Schumer has sought to take advantage of the New York Liberty Zone (NYLZ) tax credits, which were intended to stimulate the redevelopment of downtown Manhattan after 9/11, to finance a rail project that has been under consideration since well before 2001. This use of the tax code to provide a grant to a locality to fund a specific infrastructure project would be unprecedented and could potentially invite a flood of similar maneuvers from members of Congress who want to earmark funds for infrastructure boondoggles. For manipulating the tax code to push for a $2 billion earmark unrelated to the original purpose of the NYLZ tax credits, CAGW names Sen. Schumer the May 2008 Porker of the Month. Read more about the Porker of the Month. EXAMINER.COM Full article The Examiner Editorial: Oink! Oink! Oink! Congress goes hog wild with farm bill WASHINGTON (Map, News) - There will be unmelted snowballs in Hades before this Congress agrees to cut out the pork in the farm bill headed for a vote within the next week, so President Bush should get his veto pen ready. At an estimated cost of at least $285 billion over 10 years, this will be the most expensive and regressive farm bill ever. Given how Congress uses budget gimmicks these days to hide the real costs of many of the bills it approves, that $285 billion figure is almost certainly too low. If there was a truth-in-spending law with real teeth in it, this Congress would have been hauled to the pokey long ago. On Tuesday, four reformist House members wrote a letter explaining that the devil is in the details of the farm bill. Democrats Ron Kind of Wisconsin and Jim Cooper of Tennessee joined Republicans Jeff Flake of Arizona and Paul Ryan of Wisconsin in pointing out that the cap on direct payments to landowners — which are based on total acreage rather than land actually used to grow real food — would rise from $40,000 to $50,000 per person. And remember those infamous subsidies that have gone to “farmers” like former ABC newsman Sam Donaldson, CNN founder Ted Turner and banker David Rockefeller? The farm bill allows subsidies for people making as much as $950,000 annually, and nearly $2 million for married couples THE HILL Chambliss would try to override farm bill veto By J. Taylor Rushing Full article J. Taylor Rushing The Hill Excerpts: Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) told White House officials Tuesday morning that if President Bush vetoes the farm bill, he’ll work to override it. “Our goal has been to write the best bill for farmers and ranchers all across America,” Chambliss told reporters after a meeting of House and Senate conferees on the farm bill. “I told the White House this morning, if they do veto it my goal is going to be to override them. We're trying to write the best bill we can to generate those votes.” Farm Bill is a Disaster Press Release Farm Bill Disaster for Taxpayers Washington – The Club for Growth condemned the Farm Bill deal as a disaster for taxpayers and urged all members of Congress to vote against the bill. Last week, the House and Senate conferees released the details of a Farm Bill deal and it doesn’t look promising. The bill perpetuates much of the waste and misuse of taxpayer dollars contained in the previous farm bills. Despite promises of reform, the Farm Bill deal contains no meaningful reform of wasteful farm subsidies and piles on additional spending. These include: Billions of dollars in direct payments to farmers earning record-high incomes during the biggest commodity boom in decades No limit on on-farm income in order to qualify for subsidies. This means taxpayers will continue to fund subsidies to wealthy farmers. A $4 billion spending boost above the current baseline for conservation programs $10.3 billion in new spending on nutrition New tax breaks for Cellulosic ethanol and timber industries A continuation of ethanol subsidies that contribute to sky-rocketing food prices while we restrict imports of low-cost ethanol precursors Ongoing incentives to grow the wrong crops on bad land in bad weather, only leading to economic distortions and greater conservation pressures These egregious farm subsidies prevent any meaningful progress on the DOHA Round for world free trade negotiations A $350 million tax break for race horse owners “This current Farm Bill deal is an insult to taxpayers across America,” said Club for Growth President Pat Toomey, “including many farmers who see their tax dollars going to the wealthiest farmers. The expiration of the 2002 Farm Bill presented Congress with the perfect opportunity to institute real reforms. Instead, Congress has decided to pile on the waste and special-interest giveaways. The White House has rightly threatened to veto the Farm Bill in its current form and we urge President Bush to follow through on his threat. If ever there was a bill worthy of being vetoed, it is the taxpayer-funded monstrosity known as the Farm Bill.” ADN.COM Knik Arm bridge: Keep funding? Posted by Alaska_Politics Posted: April 22, 2008 - 1:52 pm From Kyle Hopkins in Anchorage -- Full article Kyle Hopkins ADN.Com Excerpts: Quick, how would you answer this multiple-choice question: To date, the state has spent $40 million and plans to spend over $100 million more in federal and state transportation funds on the proposed Knik Arm Bridge, with private investors presumably covering the rest of the cost and receiving all toll revenue. Given that the Alaska Department of Transportation Commissioner has stated that federal road project funding is likely to be reduced by 25% beginning in 2009, would you prefer: A. That the state continues to spend state transportation money on this project;orB. That the state spends money on local transportation repairs, maintenance and upgrades Poll results released today by a trio of groups critical of the Knik Arm bridge say more than 70 percent of people surveyed chose 'B' -- that the money should go to local roads. April 23, 2008 HOUSE Key Vote Alert - Medicaid Rules Democrats Actually Trying To Pass A Law To Allow Continued Fraud and Abuse In Medicaid Visit: Club For Growth Key Vote Alert "NO" on Protecting the Medicaid Safety Net Act (H.R. 5613) The 2007 Government Accountability Office Report Showed That Medicaid Sent Out $12.3 billion in Overpaments-Mostly Fraud The Club for Growth urges Members of the House to vote "NO" on the Protecting the Medicaid Safety Net Act (H.R. 5613), which is expected to be voted on today under suspension. This key vote will be scored on the Club for Growth's 2008 Congressional Scorecard. The bill would prevent the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) from implementing rules that would cut down on fraud and abuse, and would also close loopholes used by the states to inappropriately extract more matching dollars from the federal government. Over the long run, this bill would cost billions of dollars and would unwind a lot of the cost savings made in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2006. We also object to this bill being considered under suspension of the rules. Instead, this bill deserves extensive debate and should be amendable. The White House has threatened a veto on this bill, stating that preventing the regulations from being implemented would cost too much and would threaten the fiscal integrity of Medicaid. April 7, 2008 From: Club For Growth Visit: Club For Growth Porkers Get Creative with Bill Language Andrew Roth From the New York Times: With great fanfare, Congress adopted strict ethics rules last year requiring members to disclose when they steered federal money to pet projects. But it turns out lawmakers can still secretly direct billions of dollars to favored organizations by making vague requests rather than issuing explicit instructions to government agencies in committee reports and spending bills. That seeming courtesy is the difference between “soft earmarks” and the more insistent “hard earmarks.” How much money is requested for any specific project? It is difficult to say, since price tags are not included with soft earmarks. Who is the sponsor? Unclear, unless the lawmaker later acknowledges it. Purpose of the spending? Usually not provided. How to spot a soft earmark? Easy. The language is that of a respectful suggestion: A committee “endorses” or notes it “is aware” of deserving programs and “urges” or “recommends” that agencies finance them. CLUB FOR GROWTH Visit: Club for Growth  Another House Member Swears Off Pork Andrew Roth Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI-04) is swearing off earmarks for the 2009 fiscal year. His office called me today to inform me of the news. Congratulations! Camp is the 39th House member to forgo pork projects. You can view the master list here. CLUB FOR GROWTH Visit: Club for Growth April 1, 2008 Newspaper Lacks Understanding of Earmarks Andrew Roth I sent this letter to the Houston Chronicle last week: To the editor, Your ambivalence to federal earmarks reveals your lack of understanding on the subject (Editorial: “Quibbling,” March 25, 2008). Did you know that pork projects circumvent all of the budgetary controls designed to reduce wasteful spending, such as competitive bidding, congressional hearings, and proper authorizations? Did you know that earmarks are used routinely as currency to buy votes in order to pass the truly massive spending bills which you so correctly criticize? Did you know that party leaders shower pork upon vulnerable lawmakers who use these large, disguised “faux” campaign contributions to help themselves get re-elected? Did you know that it isn’t the merits of a project, but the seniority of the lawmaker, which dictates whether it will get funding or not? Indeed, the merits of a particular pork project are irrelevant. It is the process which is corrupt. If you get rid of the process, you get rid of the means by which Congress greatly and unethically expands the size of government. Nothing short of unrelenting vigilance against pork projects is what’s needed to clean up Washington and reduce our bloated federal budget. Andrew Roth Director of Government Affairs Club for Growth Washington, D.C. Biggert is 37th House Member to Swear off Pork Andrew Roth Congratulations are in order for Rep. Judy Biggert (R-IL-13). She is the 37th House member to swear off earmarks. Her office issued this press release yesterday: [...]Biggert (R-IL-13) today announced that she will not participate in Washington’s broken earmark system. The announcement was made during an economic roundtable event in Downers Grove where Biggert met with local business leaders from the Downers Grove Chamber of Commerce and Downers Grove Economic Development Corporation to discuss local and national economic concerns, including federal spending, taxes, and mortgage reform. [...]“I’ve always said I’d be willing to give up earmarks if the Senate would do the same and spending is actually reduced,” said Biggert. “With more support than ever before for a moratorium, I think we have the best opportunity yet to do just that. But individual members must be willing to take the lead on this if we are ever going to see real earmark reforms enacted.” Biggert noted that Congress has a Constitutional responsibility to make spending decisions, including decisions to spend federal money on specific projects, but the process should be open to greater public scrutiny and debate. Although the House has enacted recent reforms to increase transparency, the potential for abuse remains high because rules do not apply equally to bills and conference reports, or to authorization, appropriations, or tax bills. In some cases, whoever is chairing the floor of the House can rule on an objection to an earmark -- without a vote ever occurring. Other earmarks can avoid review altogether by being ‘airdropped’ into a conference report after a spending bill has passed both the House and Senate. Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX-10) is the latest House member to swear off earmarks. Note how this Houston Chronicle news article is worded: Republican Rep. Michael McCaul, apparently facing a stiff challenge for re-election in November, said Monday that he would no longer request controversial spending projects known as earmarks. McCaul's well-financed opponent, Democrat Larry Joe Doherty, questioned the sincerity of the congressman's reversal but said he, too, would not ask for earmarks if elected to the district that sprawls from western Harris County to Austin. [...]"The system is broken and it needs to be fixed," McCaul said. "A majority of these earmarks wouldn't get through Congress if they were given the best test of sunlight. Until they put more transparency into the system, I am not going to play the game." Even though we've seen it before, this is a very big deal because the motivation is so explicit. Once upon a time, a politician sought earmarks in order to get re-elected. Now, the dynamics have changed thanks to the porkbusting movement. In order to get re-elected, a politician must now give up earmarks. McCaul is now the 36th House member to swear off earmarks. ‘Ed McMahon Syndrome’? Gilhooley, Holden voice differences over earmarks Nanny State Democrats Give Away Taxpayers Money Like It's Their Own. BY BEN WOLFGANG STAFF WRITER bwolfgang@republicanherald.com 03/24/2008 When the check gets cashed, who should get the credit? Full article Ben Wolfgang Republican Herald.com Excerpts: Congressional earmarks have sparked a war of words between U.S. Rep. Tim Holden, D-17, and his likely November opponent, Republican Toni Gilhooley, who claims Holden may have a new, previously unheard of problem, something she called “Ed McMahon Syndrome.” “Ed McMahon is the guy walking around with the big cardboard checks,” said Gilhooley, a Dauphin County native who served 25 years with the Pennsylvania State Police. Holden ranks fourth among U.S representatives from Pennsylvania in earmarks — one percent of the federal budget set aside for specific projects in congressional districts — according to Taxpayers for Common Sense, an independent budget watchdog group. The projects can range from road repairs to museums, according to group members. Holden brought home more than $15 million for projects in the 17th District last year, according to the watchdog group. From: Robert D. Novak REAL CLEAR POLITICS-MCCAIN'S MISTAKE March 22, 2008 POLL ON PORK "In the face of a continuing quest for pork-barrel spending by most of Congress, pollster Frank Luntz in a recent survey found that the public disagrees with their lawmakers. On tax policy, Luntz found that 40 percent of a national sample of swing voters are opposed to higher taxes and prefer "fewer earmarks and no more bridges to nowhere." The compromise proposal of making earmarks "transparent" received 23 percent backing. Only 14 percent supported a rollback of President Bush's tax cuts. With Congress in recess, the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call reported, the demand for earmarks by more than 90 percent of House members required the House Appropriations Committee to extend its March 19 deadline for requests to March 24." Robert Novak is a syndicated columnist and editor of the Evans-Novak Political Report From CITIZENS AGAINST GOVERNMENT WASTE (CAGW) To: To CAGW Congressional Candidates Sign the Earmark Reform Pledge The ink was barely dry on the “New Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007” when House and Senate leaders began looking for ways to circumvent or obstruct its earmark disclosure rules. CCAGW’s Earmark Reform Pledge aims to commit candidates for Congress to providing taxpayers with greater transparency and accountability for earmarks. By signing the pledge, candidates agree that they will adhere to 10 provisions, including:
-fully disclose all earmarked funding or targeted tax benefit requests on their congressional websites; -not request any earmarked funding or targeted tax benefit provision that does not serve a federal interest and/or have a federal nexus; -not request any earmarked funding or targeted tax benefit provision that would be directed toward a specific private entity that was not requested by an agency; and, -support legislation that would end the linkage between campaign contributions and earmarks. Current candidate signatories as of 3/19/08:* ArizonaDavid Schweikert (R-5) CaliforniaDuncan Hunter (R-52) FloridaHal Valeche (R-16) KansasLynn Jenkins (R-2)Jim Ryun (R-2) New JerseyMartin Marks (R-7)Christopher Venis (R-7)Kate Whitman (R-7) PennsylvaniaChris Hackett (R-10)Matt Shaner (R-5) VirginiaAmit Singh (R-8) *Listing on this website the names of candidates who have signed the earmark reform pledge does not imply endorsement by CCAGW.
From: New York Times By CHRISTOPHER DREW and JO BECKER Obama Lists His Earmarks, Asking Clinton for Hers Full article New York Times Excerpts: Senator Barack Obama on Thursday released a list of $740 million in earmarked spending requests that he had made over the last three years, and his campaign challenged Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to do the same. The list included $1 million for a hospital where Mr. Obama’s wife works, money for several projects linked to campaign donors and support for more than 200 towns, civic institutions and universities in Illinois. But as the Senate debated a bill to restrict the controversial method of paying for home-state projects — a measure defeated Thursday evening — Mr. Obama’s presidential campaign also said that only about $220 million worth of his requests had been approved by Congress. And among those that had been killed were his request in 2006 for $1 million for an expansion of the University of Chicago Medical Center, where Mr. Obama’s wife, Michelle, is a vice president. BARACK OBAMA One of Obama's Earmark Requests Was for the Hospital That Employs Michelle Obama Dan Riehl notes, via Amanda Carpenter, that in the list of earmarks he requested, $1 million was requested for the construction of a new hospital pavilion at the University Of Chicago. The request was put in in 2006. You know who works for the University of Chicago Hospital? Michelle Obama. She's vice president of community affairs. As Byron noted, "In 2006, the Chicago Tribune reported that Mrs. Obama’s compensation at the University of Chicago Hospital, where she is a vice president for community affairs, jumped from $121,910 in 2004, just before her husband was elected to the Senate, to $316,962 in 2005, just after he took office." Looks like that raise was worth it. From: Club For Growth March 15, 2008 We've Reach the 'Big 40' Milestone Andrew Roth We have just learned of the 40th member of Congress to swear off earmarks for the year. From a press release that I received via email: Today, Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers announced she will not seek earmarks this year. "[...]I support earmarks but not under the current system. Our tax dollars should be used wisely or not at all. We simply can't continue with the current system - it hurts tax payers and the people of our region. Eastern Washington has many valuable projects that I believe will be funded under a new and improved system. I am hopeful we will use this year to make changes that will make taxpayers proud." President Bush is Right Press Release March 13, 2008 President Bush Right to Threaten Veto of Farm Bill Washington – The Club for Growth commends President Bush for a taking a strong stand in favor of serious reform of the nation’s farm subsidy program. In a statement today, President Bush agreed to sign legislation to extend current farm programs until April 18, 2008, but threatened to veto any final bill that does not include serious subsidy reform and does not eliminate all tax increases. With the farm economy booming and the current Farm Bill doling out excessive subsidies to wealthy farmers and the occasional non-farmer, now would be the perfect time to phase out this misguided program entirely. At a minimum, the President should not accept anything less than true reform. These include, but are not limited to: * No subsidies should be granted to families with incomes above $200,000 * Limit the total subsidy payment to eligible farmers to $250,000 with absolutely no loopholes. This provision received 56 votes on the Senate floor, but required 60 to pass. * Lower the commission rate for government-subsidized crop insurance agents and companies * Eliminate all tax increases from the Farm Bill “The Farm Bill is nothing more than a program that redistributes income from taxpayers to often wealthy farmers,” said Club for Growth President Pat Toomey. “It distorts the agricultural economy and rewards special interests on the backs of American taxpayers. President Bush was right to issue a veto threat of anything less than true reform. After years of wasting taxpayers’ money on outrageous subsidy payments, it is time for Congress to enact serious changes to the Farm Bill.” From: Club For Growth Jim Cooper Swears Off Earmarks Andrew Roth Lawmakers are starting to swear off earmarks faster than I can type these words. Today, CongressDaily reported ($) that Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN-05) will forgo earmarks for FY09. Cooper has a solid record on this issue already. In the 2007 RePORK Card, Cooper was, by far, the highest-ranking Democrat (98%). The next best score was John Barrow (D-GA-12) with 20%. Excerpt: Rep. Allen Boyd, D-Fla., an appropriator and a leader of the Blue Dog Coalition, said he has asked Pelosi to refrain from banning earmarks. "We'll go home and let the president make all the decisions. Bad idea," he said. A moratorium was gaining steam among House Democrats, however. Rep. Jim Cooper of Tennessee today became the fourth Democrat to announce he would forgo district projects this year. Cooper is the 4th House Democrat to swear off pork, and the 29th House member overall. Welcome to the "Just Say No to Pork" coalition, Rep. Cooper! From: Politico Obama, Clinton Embrace Earmark Moratorium By: David Rogers Mar 10, 2008 06:21 PM EST Full article David Rogers Politico Excerpts: After months of partisan sniping, the great earmarks debate in Congress may be collapsing in a marriage of political convenience between conservatives and leading Democrats. Late Monday, presidential candidate Barack Obama, quickly followed by rival Hillary Rodham Clinton, joined Senate efforts to ban all such home-state projects next year, and the anti-pork camp also hopes to pick up some unexpected help from a third Democrat: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The back-to-back endorsements mean the entire presidential field will be on board the budget amendment already co-sponsored by the likely Republican presidential nominee, Arizona Sen. John McCain. Pelosi has not yet gone so far as to embrace such a broad moratorium on earmarks, but she also has signaled a growing weariness with the debate and a desire to take the issue off the table going into the November elections. Pork From Club For Growth Big Earmark News Andrew Roth I'm being told by my sources on Capitol Hill that Barack Obama has just signed up as a co-sponsor to Jim DeMint's one-year earmark moratorium amendment. This is great news, not necessarily because of Obama, but because it will force Clinton to sign up as well. And with her, I suspect that the two Democrats will bring several more of their colleagues with them. And that will force several Republican senators to vote for it as well. If this thing passes, and it's becoming more and more likely, then the pressure will be overwhelming in the House to do the same. The question will then become whether or not Boehner and the GOP beat Pelosi and the Democrats to the punch. From: Club For Growth The FY09 Budget Andrew Roth The House Budget Committee marked up the FY09 budget today. Rep. Jeb Hensarling writes: Some things never change. Today, Democrats proposed a budget that is the largest in American history and will be subsidized by the largest tax increase ever imposed upon the American people. Democrats talk the talk, but hardly ever walk the walk. Raising your taxes to fuel more wasteful Washington spending is another example of Democrats campaigning as stewards of fiscal responsibility but acting like teenagers at the mall with daddy’s credit card. U.S. House of Representatives Jeff Flake (AZ-06) John Campbell (CA-48) Jeb Hensarling (TX-05) John Shadegg (AZ-03) John Boehner (OH-08) John Kline (MN-02) Tom Price (GA-06) Lynn Westmoreland (GA-03) Virginia Foxx (NC-05) Trent Franks (AZ-02) Michele Bachmann (MN-06) Marsha Blackburn (TN-07) Eric Cantor (VA-07) Patrick McHenry (NC-10) Marilyn Musgrave (CO-04) Paul Ryan (WI-01) Walter Jones (NC-03) Devin Nunes (CA-21) Louie Gohmert (TX-01) Paul Broun (GA-10) Henry Waxman (CA-30) Joe Pitts (PA-16) Mark Kirk (IL-10) Todd Platts (PA-19) U.S. Senate Tom Coburn (OK) Jim DeMint (SC) John McCain (AZ) Claire McCaskill (MO) Richard Burr (NC) Russ Feingold (WI) Club For Growth reminds you: "This may not be an exhaustive list. If you know of a House member, or work for one, who should be added to the list, send me the documentation and I'll happily add them. Also, be sure to heap praise on these members. And, if you have time, call your own representative if they aren't on the list and encourage them to swear off pork." The Capitol switchboard is (202) 224-3121. From: Club For Growth I think this is our first appropriator to swear off earmarks. According to this news report ($) from Roll Call: One appropriator, Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), is holding a campaign event shortly before the [first quarter fundraising] deadline, but there is no chance he’ll be collecting cash for earmarks. “I am backing a moratorium and I won’t be requesting any earmarks,” Kirk said. “I just hope others follow suit.” We hope others do as well. Congrats to Rep. Kirk! Here is the master list of congressional members who have sworn off earmarks. List is being updated. From: USA Today Editorial Page Our view on agricultural payments: Cut welfare for farmers. Crop prices are booming, so why’s Congress handing out subsidies? Full article USA Today Editorial Board Excerpts: Let's see if we've got this right. The U.S. economy is either teetering on the edge of recession or already in one, desperately awaiting a jolt from the $600 stimulus checks that Congress agreed to send out this spring to people who make $75,000 a year or less. Meanwhile, the nation's farm economy is booming, thanks to spectacular crop prices and land values. But Congress is moving toward sending out billions in subsidies to farmers and big farming businesses for the next five years, no matter how much they make. Something's out of whack here, though that's hardly news to anyone who's followed the politics of farm subsidies for the past few decades, or even just the past few months. The farm subsidy system already costs U.S. households an average of $320 a year in taxes and higher food prices, according to the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. From David Keating Club For Growth While interviewing candidate Rick Renzi, who wanted a Citizens Club for Growth PAC endorsement in 2002, let's just say I was not impressed. I had a bad feeling about this guy. After getting elected, he compiled a lousy voting record for a Republican on economic issues, which I expected. Now according to his indictment, it appears that he stole this race for Congress with money stolen from his insurance agency's customers. These were nonprofit groups, and if I recall correctly from the interview, either conservative groups and or churches. Then used his congressional office to line his pockets and attempt to pay debts. Stunning corruption. The House should quickly do what it can to confirm these charges, and if they are as credible as they appear, he has got to go. From: Americans For Prosperity The Murtha Bash - Pork Crash Ed Frank You may have heard recently that one of the most notorious pork-barrellers in Congress, U.S. Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania,is hosting a swanky fundraising dinner with a bunch of earmark-seeking defense lobbyists at the Ritz Carlton in Arlington, Virginia, tomorrow night. A couple of weeks ago our friends at RedState called for folks in the area to crash the party and now Americans for Prosperity is joining together with Citizens Against Government Waste and the National Taxpayers Union to hold a taxpayer rally outside the event. If you're in the area, be sure to stop by and take a stand against pork-barrel politics! Full article below: To Ed Frank Americans For Prosperity From: The Hill.Com Boehner protests House decision to yank earmark site By Jackie Kucinich House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) is protesting the House’s decision to shut down a GOP website on earmark reform. Excerpts: The website, www.earmarkreform.house.gov, which was still functional at press time, has served as a clearinghouse of GOP statements on earmark reform as well as articles, editorials and op-eds. It was launched on Feb. 12. According to a release from the office of House Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) Dan Beard, the website was not in compliance with a 1999 House Administration Committee regulation that states that a “.gov” URL cannot be “a slogan” or “imply in any manner that the House endorses or favors any specific commercial product, commodity, or service.” It must also “be recognizably derivative or representative of the name of the Member or the name of the office sponsoring the website.” ### Visit: Club For Growth For The Following Article and All Others On That Site Rep. Joe Pitts Swears Off Earmarks Andrew Roth Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA-16) has sworn off earmarks for the FY09 budget cycle. Actually, Pitts swore off solo budget earmarks last year, so already, he's well ahead of his colleagues in fighting for meaningful reform. Here's a quote from a recent op-ed by Pitts: I and many Republicans in the House have gone even further and decided to stop requesting earmarks. I will not be requesting earmarks this year. [...] Editorial pages around the country have begun to take the Democrats to task for their inaction. The San Francisco Chronicle, Speaker Pelosi’s hometown newspaper, wrote, "Democrats are on the wrong side of an issue they once so passionately championed." In July 2006, Pelosi said to the Wall Street Journal, “Personally, myself, I’d get rid of all of them. None of them is worth the skepticism, the cynicism the public has . . . and the fiscal irresponsibility of it.” Yet she remains silent now, even as her own Committee Chairmen begin to agree with the need for reform. The public deserves to know that their hard earned tax dollars are appropriated in an open, transparent, and honest manner. House Republicans will continue to use procedural measures to force the Democrats to vote on these reforms because this issue is fundamentally important to the public’s trust in Congress. Congratulations to Rep. Pitts for being a leading voice on this issue and for having the courage to stop the addictive practice of earmarking. Right-click to download Real World Economics: For High School Seniors College Students and New Entrants To The Workforce. It's Free-It's Instant You will need Adobe Reader (the latest version is recommended) installed on your computer in order to open and read this ebook. You can get Adobe Reader here (a new window will open so you can download it without leaving this page). If you want to open the file in your browser window, just click on the link. However, if you want to download the file to view later, then right-click on the link and choose "Save Target As" if you are using Internet Explorer or "Save Link As" if you are using Mozilla. Some Browsers use "Save File as" Then select where you want to save the file on your hard drive. Once you have saved the file, locate where you saved it, and double click to open. This is in no way an endorsement of Ron Paul. The importance of it is that running for congress is realistic for any eligible person who has the right message. From Club For Growth: Backtracking on Earmark Reform By Robert Bluey Full article To Club For Growth Excerpts: Just when it appeared House Republicans had turned the corner on earmark reform, party leaders did the unthinkable. They picked pork-loving Rep. Jo Bonner (R-Ala.) for the vacant seat on the Appropriations Committee, bypassing conservatives such as Reps. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colo.). In doing so, the Republicans missed a golden opportunity to show they were committed to real reform. Bonner may talk a good game when it comes to earmark reform. His record, however, is abysmal. The three-term Republican scored just 2% on the Club for Growth’s 2007 RePORK Card, meaning he voted for just one of the 50 anti-pork amendments offered by conservatives. That’s the same score as liberal Reps. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), Bill Jefferson (D-La.) and Jim Moran (D-Va.). Musgrave, meanwhile, notched a score of 94%. And Flake not only supported all 50 amendments, he introduced many of them. Americans for Prosperity President Tim Phillips called the appointment “a huge missed opportunity for true earmark reform and for the Republican Party.” Phillips acknowledged that it was always possible for Bonner to “see the light and change [his] past habits,” but history usually serves as a pretty good guide to the future -- particularly in Washington. From Club For Growth: By Andrew Roth FreedomWorks is calling on Rep. Jo Bonner to accept a personal one-year moratorium on accepting earmarks. In an official press release, FreedomWorks Chairman Dick Armey said: “Earmarking is a localized political process, and conservatives expect leaders with a national vision. Earmarking works fine for liberals who follow an ‘all politics is local, what can you give me’ philosophy. Earmarking does not work with the conservative value of shrinking government and with constituents not looking for government handouts. FreedomWorks’ campaign will shine the light on conservatives and liberals alike and we’ll see who’s really serious about stopping this shameful process and who’s simply posturing.” This is in no way an endorsement of Ron Paul. The importance of it is that running for congress is realistic for any eligible person who has the right message. The Club For Growth reports this statement from U.S. House of Representative Henry Waxman of California February 12, 2008 First House Democrat Swears Off Earmarks Andrew Roth Rep. Henry Waxman (CA-30) is the first Democrat in the House to swear off earmarks. He issued a statement (PDF) to that effect yesterday. Excerpt: After careful consideration I have decided that I will not request funding through the earmark process in the FY 20009 appropriations cycle. We have a problem in Congress. Congressional spending through earmarks is out of control. When I was first elected to Congress in the 1970s, it wasn't unusual for an appropriations bill to be either completely free of earmarks or have just a few dozen special projects. That slowly changed, and by 1995 there were nearly 3,000 earmarks in that year's appropriations bills. By 2005 the number of earmarks -- and the billions of dollars devoted to them -- had skyrocketed. The Congressional Research Service counted more than 15,800 earmarks in the 13 appropriations bills for fiscal year 2005 at a cost of over $27 billion. At the same time funding for some of our nation's most basic needs was being shortchanged. Congrats, Rep. Waxman. Well done, sir. ### Rep. Gilchrest and pork THE WASHINGTON TIMES EDITORIAL February 10, 2008 Full article Washington Times Excerpts: In an effort to stave off electoral catastrophe this year, House Republican leaders are targeting Democrats who are vulnerable to charges that they broke 2006 campaign promises to fight pork-barrel spending. The anti-pork campaign would have more credibility if House GOP leader John Boehner wasn't rallying behind embattled incumbent Rep. Wayne Gilchrest — one of the top pork-barrelers in Congress — as he attempts to fight off a primary challenge from conservative state Sen. Andy Harris, who has made ending earmark abuse a major issue in his campaign to unseat Mr. Gilchrest in Tuesday's election. The Club for Growth, an organization which focuses on combating wasteful federal spending, rated all 435 members of the House on 50 amendments to strip questionable pork projects from fiscal 2008 appropriations bills.
From: Club For Growth House Votes on Earmark Moratorium Andrew Roth House Republicans forced a vote to consider an immediate earmark moratorium today. The final tally was 204-196. A "yes" vote was a vote to not consider the moratorium. All "yes" votes were Democrats. Voting "no" were 189 Republicans and 7 Democrats. Those 7 Dems were: Donnelley (IN-02) Mahoney (FL-16) Hill (IN-09) Ellsworth (IN-08) Lampson (TX-22) Boyda (KS-02) Barrow (GA-12) Boehner and Blunt: House GOP Will Force Vote TOMORROW on Immediate Earmark Moratorium Leaders Say GOP Will Force House to Confront Earmark Issue as Bill Containing Higher Education Slush Fund Hits Floor Washington, Feb 6 - Disappointed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) rejection of House Republican calls for an immediate moratorium on all taxpayer-funded earmarks, House Republicans will force a vote on the issue tomorrow, House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) and Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO) announced this afternoon. The leaders said House Republicans will force the earmark reform vote as a higher education authorization bill comes to the floor containing what many argue is a taxpayer-funded slush fund for colleges and universities. “House Republicans regret Speaker Pelosi’s decision to keep the earmark factory open. Middle-class families are fed up with Washington politicians squandering their hard-earned money, particularly at a time when families are struggling with the rising cost of living. We need to bring fundamental change to the way Washington spends the American people’s money, but this change cannot begin until the earmarks stop. Republicans hope rank-and-file Democrats will honor the promises they made in 2006, and join us in voting to halt the broken earmark process so it can be reformed,” Boehner said. “It’s become evident to the American people, as well as a good many of us in Congress, that the system Congress uses to dole out earmarks is badly broken and in need of thorough, fundamental reform. Unfortunately, it’s also evident that Democrats in Congress have demonstrated neither the will nor the appetite to work with Republicans in bringing about that change voluntarily. So it’s incumbent upon us to use every opportunity available to speak up for the millions of Americans who have had enough,” said Blunt. The House is scheduled to vote Thursday on legislation that would reauthorize the Higher Education Act (HEA), including part of the law known as the Fund for Improving Post-Secondary Education (FIPSE), which many reform advocates argue is a taxpayer-funded slush fund for higher education earmarks. Three GOP members of the House Appropriations Committee — Reps. Jack Kingston of Georgia, Frank Wolf of Virginia and Zack Wamp of Tennessee — have authored legislation that would bring the earmark process to a halt and establish a panel to identify ways to permanently change the spending process. Kingston-Wolf-Wamp has been cosponsored by 129 House Republicans, including the entire House Republican leadership team. However, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who as leader of the Democrat-controlled House has the power to shut down the chamber’s earmarking process immediately, declined to support the measure or the proposed moratorium. Republican Leader John Boehner From: The Washington Times Earmarking reform By Mike Pence February 5, Excerpts: Airplane pilots know that when you're flying a plane and the gauges start telling you something is wrong, the first thing you do is put the airplane on the ground, check out the engine and figure out what's wrong. After years of excess spending and outright corruption, the gauges of federal spending in Washington are telling the American people something is very wrong, especially when it comes to earmarks. It is time to land the plane and fix the engine. It is time for an earmark moratorium followed by fundamental reform. Earmarking occurs when a member of Congress requests funding for specific projects in their districts and states. Such spending is as old as the republic itself. Under the Constitution, Congress has the authority to spend the peoples' money in ways both large and small. I have requested earmarked spending every year that I have been in office. HOUSE MEMBERS Jeff Flake (AZ-06) John Campbell (CA-48) Jeb Hensarling (TX-05) John Shadegg (AZ-03) John Boehner (OH-08) John Kline (MN-02) Tom Price (GA-06) Lynn Westmoreland (GA-03) Virginia Foxx (NC-05) Trent Franks (AZ-02) Michele Bachmman (MN-06) Marsha Blackburn (TN-07) Eric Cantor (VA-07) Patrick McHenry (NC-10) Marilyn Musgrave (CO-04) Peter Roskam (IL-06) Paul Ryan (WI-01) SENATORS Tom Coburn (OK) Jim DeMint (SC) John McCain (AZ) Claire McCaskill (MO) Richard Burr (NC) Russ Feingold (WI) From: Club For Growth Full article: To (AP) article at Club For Growth Excerpts: House GOP Proposes Earmarks Moratorium WASHINGTON (AP) — House Republicans say they are willing to stop funding — at least temporarily — pet projects for their home districts if Democrats are willing to go along. The move announced Friday night at a House GOP retreat in White Sulphur Springs, W.Va., fell short of a drive by party conservatives who wanted a unilateral one-year moratorium on GOP "earmarks." If Democrats don't accept the challenge, as seems likely, party members could go ahead and obtain earmarks, subject to a few modest reforms. The proposed moratorium would give time for reforms to be devised to supplement recent rules requiring lawmakers who obtain earmarks and the entities receiving the money to be identified. "House Republicans believe that the earmark system should be brought to an immediate halt,... From: New York Post Excerpts: Pork January 25, 2008 -- The Bush administration and House leaders yesterday announced a tentative deal on a proposed $150 billion economic stimulus plan. Their solution? Free money! That's the crux of the proposal, which would send rebate checks of at least $300 to all Americans earning up to $75,000 a year, plus some added relief for mortgaged-strapped homeowners and businesses making capital investments. Some of this is surely good news. The Senate is not yet on board, so it's necessary to wait to see what finally emerges from the congressional sausage factory. From: Politico
By: Samuel Loewenberg Jan 22, 2008 06:59 PM EST Jim Nussle and President Bush Full article To Politico Excerpts: GOP strategy has a flaw: Dems approved fewer earmarks than Republicans did when they ran Congress. Republicans are planning another yearlong campaign to shame Democrats for failing to kill the practice of earmarking money for pet projects. But there are two big problems with the strategy, according to nonpartisan experts who track spending. Democrats last year actually approved fewer earmarks than Republicans did when they ran Congress. And many Republicans remain very supportive of the controversial spending practice. From: Club For Growth Andrew Roth President Bush said something earlier today that has fiscal conservatives giddy with potential joy. During a press conference, he announced his disappointment with the number of earmarks in the recent Omnibus spending bill. He said: "I am instructing the budget director to review options for dealing with the wasteful spelling in the omnibus bill.” This is president-ese for "through an executive order, I might tell the respective agencies to ignore the earmarks and to spend the money on higher priorities." This is a HUGE deal. With his signature, Bush could effectively wipe away almost all of this year's earmarks. It would easily be the biggest achievement on wasteful spending of all time. And it would set a wonderful precedent for the future that would deter the abuse of earmarks by members of Congress. The Wall Street Journal had an editorial ($) on this very subject this morning. Excerpt: ...Mr. Bush has the legal authority not to fund these projects, which lack the force of law. Mr. Bush's own budget office has asserted this authority before. Earlier this year, then budget director Rob Portman instructed federal agencies that they could disregard committee report language on earmarks. "Unless a project or activity is specifically identified in statutory text, agencies should not obligate funds on the basis of earmarks contained in Congressional reports or documents," Mr. Portman wrote. That's why there were fewer earmarks last year. Federal agencies would still be obligated to spend the money appropriated by Congress. But they could choose to spend those dollars on higher priorities that would benefit all taxpayers, rather than on favors for special interests or political donors. For example, the $700,000 for a bike trail in Minneapolis could be used to rebuild the collapsed bridge in that city and to strengthen others. We hear the White House is exploring this option and that some in the Senate are urging him to take it. This won't make the President popular with Appropriators in either party, but it isn't as if he needs to store political capital for a reform agenda in his last year in office. Taxpayers would be grateful that someone is finally trying to discipline an earmark process that wastes money and has a record of inviting corruption. Mr. Bush has both the law and public opinion on his side. From: Club For Growth Conservatives Call on Bush to Veto Omnibus Andrew Roth Fiscal conservatives in the House and Senate are calling on President Bush to veto the Omnibus because it's stuff with egregious pork projects. “President Bush was wise to challenge Congress to scale back what has become known as the ‘earmark favor factory’ in Washington. Special interest earmarks divert billions of dollars from higher priority needs and undermine public confidence in Congress, which is at an all-time low. President Bush should veto this bloated spending bill and force members of Congress to sacrifice some of their pet projects for higher priorities. For instance, few Americans would support spending $213,000 for olive fruit fly research in France ahead of spending that same sum to support our troops, repair dangerous bridges or provide health care for kids,” Dr. [Tom] Coburn said. “Moreover, the presence of 9,170 earmarks in this bill has created a powerful incentive for members of both parties to look the other way in the face of budget gimmicks and accounting shenanigans that are hiding unknown billions in additional spending above the President’s request,” Dr. Coburn added. “Once again, Democrats have broken their promises. Democrats promised to cut earmarks in half, but this bill doesn't even come close. In fact, this omnibus could spend more on pork than any appropriations bill in history. Americans want us to end the wasteful and corrupting earmark system that helps special interests at the expense of taxpayers. This bill is earmark business as usual and it deserves to be rejected,” Sen. [Jim] DeMint said. “No American taxpayer should tolerate Members of Congress spending hard earned tax dollars on pet projects that benefit their cronies or seek to buy themselves back into office. Yet, once again, this bill demonstrates that is exactly what the Congress is doing. Every reform promise has proven hollow. The President should veto this bill and demand an end to self serving Congressional corruption,” Rep. [John] Shadegg said. “Despite claims that they were going to clean up the pork, Democrats produced a massive spending bill that contains nearly 700 pages of 9,000 plus earmarks. Worse, Democrats are forcing members to vote on these earmarks without allowing any time to investigate their merit. Though not all these earmarks will be bad, it is clear that once again the earmarking process has lent itself to the triumph of seniority over merit, secrecy over transparency, and the special interest over the national interest. That alone would be reason enough to veto the bill. The nation would be far better off with a Continuing Resolution than passing a 3,000 page, rammed-down-your-throat spending bill chock full of uninvestigated earmarks,” Rep. [Jeb] Hensarling said. “This omnibus bill still spends too much, includes over 9,000 earmarks, is loaded with accounting gimmicks, and members of Congress were given 24 hours to review all 3,000 pages of it. I urge the President to veto it,” Rep. [John] Campbell said. From Club For Growth DeMint Calls Mega Spending Bill “Unacceptable” WASHINGTON, DC — U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) made the following statement today regarding the release of the proposed 3,565-page Fiscal Year 2008 Omnibus Appropriations bill. “Republicans were expecting something the President could sign with a straight face but this bill is completely unacceptable,” said Senator DeMint. “We’ve only had it for a few hours and it’s clear this is a bad deal. Instead of passing a clean bill, Democrats have packed it full of controversial policy riders, wasteful earmarks, and budget gimmicks that add billions in additional domestic spending over the President's level.” “I’m sure Democrats will try to ram this down our throats before anyone can read it, but we should do everything we can to stop them. I know many in Congress are anxious to get home for the holidays but we have a responsibility to stop wasteful Washington spending and protect American taxpayers,” said Senator DeMint. After an initial review of the legislation, several wasteful and unnecessary provisions have already been identified: Earmarks: Instead of reducing the number of pork projects in the federal budget, the bill drives the number of earmarks up from last year. The bill contains over 8,000 earmarks, bringing the total for 2008 up to over 10,000 earmarks compared to just 2,658 in 2007. Spending Gimmicks: Instead of cutting wasteful spending out of the bill to bring its cost down to the President’s level, the bill uses budget tricks and gimmicks to hide at least $14 billion in extra domestic spending. Policy Riders: Instead of limiting the package to spending needed to fund government operations, the bill includes unrelated policy items. Many of these riders are backed by special interests, such as organized labor, and could not win passage on their own. "Coburn and DeMint Talk Fiscal Policy " Publication: Human Events Author: Ericka Andersen Two Senators Doing Great, Controlling Pork-Full Article Excerpts: Freedomworks, a national grassroots organization dedicated to lower taxes, less government and more economic freedom for Americans, launched their two-day Liberty Summit Wednesday for more than 200 state volunteer leaders across the country. The summit was designed to educate attendees to recruit friends at home and mobilize powerful campaigns locally to fight for more individual freedom and elect constitutionally-motivated leaders. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), one of the strongest proponents of earmark reform, spoke on the importance of eliminating pork barrel spending and applauded the efforts of other Senate and congressional leaders who’ve joined him in the fight. Several years ago, he noted, nobody knew what an earmark was but today, the term is common knowledge. Coburn called earmarking the “seduction and corruption of members of Congress” and told the audience that “activism is going to change things.” He declared he could beat any pro-earmark politician in any place in the country because the people reject pork. The Hill By Roxana Tiron November 20, 2007 Excerpts Sens. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) and Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) call each other “brother,” and that brotherly relationship is paying off in defense earmarks worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Stevens, the longest-serving Senate Republican, has secured $194 million in earmarks, while Inouye can boast of earmarks totaling $203.6 million, according to a database compiled by watchdog organization Taxpayers for Common Sense (TCS). The two veteran lawmakers, who have given thousands of dollars in political contributions to each other, looked out for each other in the final 2008 defense appropriations bill. Inouye is the chairman of the Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, while Stevens is the ranking member. Inouye this year contributed $10,000 from his political action committee to Stevens. The Alaskan legislator, who is under FBI investigation, is up for reelection this cycle. It looks like Congress is following its usual brazen behavior when it comes to earmarks. Citizens Against Government Waste, (CAGW) is compiling its tally of pork projects in the pending spending bills. CAGW estimates that there will be at least 8,000 earmarks this year, costing U.S. taxpayers, $18 billion to $20 billion. Democrats and Republicans had promised to treat the practice of directing money to their home districts as something should be frowned upon. They can't help themselves They have not come close to keeping their promises. In the last fiscal year, when Republicans controlled Congress, there were $29 billion in total earmarks. The initial figures, show that the Defense bill was a huge magnet for earmarks. It included 2,074 projects, totally $6.6 billion. We need 25 year olds to start running for congress. Democrats will need tax increases to fund $4 billion worth of food stamp and other nutrition programs. That left Democrats looking for more votes in their own party, especially among urban and suburban lawmakers. They did get support from at least one new Democrat Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass.,by promising McGovern some money for his favorite, the international food aid program. Other bribe money went for racial discrimination claims from the 1990s. That money was offered up to gain support among members of the Congressional Black Caucus. The Washington Post is reporting today that the U.S.D.A. distributed $1.1 billion over seven years to the estates or companies of deceased farmers and routinely failed to conduct reviews required to ensure that the payments were properly made, according to a government report. Examining 181 cases between the years 1999 to 2005, according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO),the GAO found that 40 percent of the time officials approved payments without any review. Senator Jim DeMint (R) South Carolina is standing alone in his, battle in the Senate. Harry Reid and the Democratic leadership want to move an ethics reform bill to conference before the end of the month. By moving it to conference, chances are the "reform language" will be stripped out. Harry Reid is loves his pork, and is fighting ferociously to keep it. Quote from chairman of the House Appropriations Committee David R. Obey (D) Wisconsin "As Mr. Obey put it, "Members should be more than ATM machines for their district. They should be policy setters for the country." This was said after Obey tried unsuccessfully not to put earmarks in individual spending bills when being considered on the House Floor. Obey wanted to add the measures only after they were in conference. This sham would mean, they could not be subject to amendments. Democrats had promised to end these kind of shenanigans while running for office in 2006. This maneuver was a worse slight of hand than the slight of hand Republicans had been practicing with earmarks. Jeff Flake offered five amendments on Wednesday to eliminate pork projects. Requested by Rep. John Murtha-(D)-$1,200,000 for the Southwest Pennsylvania Heritage Preservation Commission Requested by Rep.Deborah Pryce-(R) $100,000 for a fire fighters’ hall in Columbus, Ohio Requested by Requested by Rep. Chaka Fattah(D) and Rep. Robert A. Brady-(D) $100,000 for the Philadelphia Art Museum’s exterior façade Requested by Rep. Charles Dent-(R) $150,000 for the Payne Art Gallery at Moravian College Requested by Rep. Murtha $150,000(D) for W.A. Young & Sons Foundry in Greene County, Pennsylvania - Requested by Rep. Murtha It is possible that Rep. Fattah has a conflict of interest in the earmark that he sponsored with Rep. Brady. According to the Washington Post, Farm Subsidies are not only going to high income farmers, over $1 billion dollars is even going to non-farmers. Can it even be comprehended how out of control spending is in the nation's capitol. The Post states further that Farm Subsidies have cost more than $70 billion since 2006. The San Diego Union-Tribune John Boehner, a Republican from Ohio, is House Minority Leader. Taking a step backward on earmarks By John Boehner June 8, 2007 After repeatedly promising the “most honest” and “most open” Congress in history, Democratic leaders have moved to make the earmark process entirely secret. It started in January when the House quickly adopted rules that have prevented lawmakers from challenging an earmark as long as the bill to which it's attached contains a list of earmarks – even if the list is inaccurate and doesn't list the earmark at issue. The rules were supposed to ensure all earmarks receive appropriate scrutiny and opportunity for debate but have instead made it nearly impossible to challenge wasteful spending. In fact, in February the majority used this loophole to certify a massive spending bill as “earmark free,” despite the fact that it contained hundreds of millions of dollars in earmarks. Now a new directive by the Democratic chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., will keep spending bills “earmark free” initially but allow Democrats to air-drop all earmarks into conference reports without any scrutiny. As The Associated Press reported, “Rather than including specific pet projects, grants and contracts in legislation as it is being written,” the order will “keep the bills free of such earmarks until it is too late for critics to effectively challenge them.” While this is an unprecedented move to avoid accountability, it isn't the first time Democrats have shown how far they'll go to protect their pork. C-SPAN's video cameras caught Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., threatening Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich, for targeting a wasteful earmark for Murtha's district that siphoned off money from critical intelligence programs. The rise in earmark secrecy has been accompanied by a massive increase in spending. In total, House Democrats have authorized $98 billion in new federal spending this year alone. They added some $6 billion to the omnibus spending package approved in January and more than $20 billion to the fiscal year 2008 budget. They stuffed more than $17 billion in additional spending into the supplemental and have racked up an additional $9 billion (and counting) in the first four appropriations bills they've marked up at the House Appropriations Committee. All of this has helped fuel public cynicism about Congress and reaffirmed the need for fundamental change in the way Washington spends taxpayer dollars. I've long been opposed to the practice of earmarking tax dollars – particularly its secretive and often wasteful nature – and was pleased when House Republicans passed the first-ever earmark reforms last year making the process more transparent by requiring a lawmaker's name be attached to any request. We also approved legislation creating a public database detailing federal grants and contracts. And just last month, Republicans successfully added a provision to a lobbying reform bill requiring lobbyists to report the earmarks for which they lobby. I've also voiced support for using new technologies to make congressional information more easily accessible and readily available on the Internet. And House Republicans are signing on to a letter signaling support for President Bush's veto of any spending bill that exceeds his requests. This kind of transparency and accountability is good and necessary, and we need more of it. Democratic leaders claim their drastic turn toward earmark secrecy is necessary to give Appropriations Committee members time to review all of the requests – even though they've had plenty of time to do so. But there's no reason the Appropriations Committee should have to work alone. There are dozens of House Republicans – and scores of interested Americans and budget watchdog groups – who would gladly help review all of those requests. Congress just needs to cough up the information and end practices that allow wasteful spending to go unchallenged. Democratic Earmarks/Pork Continues Congressman John Murtha's $39 Million Dollar Throwaway How are your Congressmen at Bringing Home The Bacon/Pork? Do you and your fellow constituents praise your two U. S. Senators and/or your U.S. House of Representatives member for pork projects and the jobs they provide in your district. Pork projects number in the thousands during every session of Congress. Your federal tax payments, pay for projects in someone else's district. Even if your district is one of the larger recipients of pork projects, expenditures per household have increased $6500, since 2001. This is the cruel deception of pork. Although Democrats are the party of big spending, Republicans, under George Bush, have been responsible for the highest inflation-adjusted annual spending since World War II, virtually begging for their recent thumping in Congress. Most pork projects should not be passed by the federal government. We are not talking about federal projects that are a great help to the country such as the expansion of our federal highway system which took place under President Eisenhower. Such legitimate projects are a great use of our federal dollars, even considering a high price tag. They enhance the lives of millions every day, and probably pay their cost many times over. However, most pork projects do not benefit the American people. They first benefit powerful committee chairmen, who allow generous pork to go to each junior member, in turn for the junior member to support the chairmen's larger delicious share. These handouts have cost nearly $30 billion dollars for each of the last two years, and because of piggybacking, the $60 billion total, goes much higher. Federal government expenditures now average $23,760 per household. There were 13,997 pork projects in the 2005 budget and 10,000 more in 2006, Most of these pork projects are unnecessary, many are useless, some downright harmful. Many others could and should be paid for by the state where they are going. Quite a few pork projects are so outrageous, they become a source of scorn and disbelief, yet Congress does not fear voters enough to stop them and so thousands more lie ahead. For a time, Hurricane Katrina and other disasters had Congress replacing some Pork in order to meet the large and unexpected expense of those disasters. Then came the news that higher than expected revenues were pouring into the Treasury, the deficit was coming down, so back to normal. Pork was king once again. As Congressmen vote away more and more of your daily labor, they see the money going back to the special interests in their home district. The Congressmen-House and Senate members-have slick campaigns to make sure those special interest handouts, receive much attention, so voters will know how much they are "getting" from government-especially the congressman who "got it for us." The staff members for House and Senate members work feverishly to get their House or Senate employer reelected. The staff members are rewarded handsomely. The taxpayers once again get gouged. In 2004, Congress rewarded their top staff members with a salary of $156,848. This was within one thousand two hundred dollars of what the Senator or House member himself was then paid. More astonishingly it was within $25,000 dollars of what the Vice President of the United States was paid. This at a time when the deficit was projected at $427 billion. In the smallest states, a congressman can spend $701,136 to pay staff. In the largest states, he can spend $1,636,750. In the Senate, staff allowance for the smallest states begins at a mere $2,264,345 and goes to a high of $3,751, 995. Some Senators have nearly 100 members on their staff. The results of the 2006 elections suggest that voters seem much more tuned in to the destructiveness of the practice that says "Bring Home The Bacon". Citizens Against Government Waste Lists hundreds of pork projects Republicans are reeling, while Democrats are making statements saying "they get it". Will They rein in Pork?We must inform them in no uncertain terms, if a project or program is not clearly cost effective and beneficial, to the nation as a whole, we want it voted down. Issue Number: IR-2007-38 Inside This Issue Pork Feb. 26, 2007 IRS TOLL-FREE HELP Free tax help from the IRS is just a phone call away. The IRS provides various services through its toll-free telephone numbers. Some of these services are available 24 hours a day.· Ask questions about your tax return. You can call the IRS Tax Help Line for Individuals at 800-829-1040, to get answers to your federal tax questions. · Order forms and publications. Call 800-TAX-FORM (800-829-3676). Copies of forms, publications and other helpful information are also available around-the-clock at the IRS Web site at www.irs.gov. · Check the status of your refund. Call the Refund Hotline at 800-829-1954. You will need to know your social security number, filing status and the exact whole-dollar amount of your expected refund. TeleTax, the automated refund line, at 800-829-4477 is available around the clock and will also let you check the status of your income tax refund. Automated refund information is generally available four to five weeks after you have filed your tax return. You can also check the status of your refund at IRS.gov by clicking on Where’s My Refund? This service is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. · Recorded tax information: The TeleTax line at 800-829-4477 has recorded messages covering more than 100 tax topics. Topics include items such as Who Must File?, Highlights of Tax Changes, Education Credits, Individual Retirement Accounts, Earned Income Tax Credit, What to Do if You Can't Pay Your Tax and more. · Hearing-impaired individuals with access to TTY/TDD equipment. Call 800-829-4059 to ask questions or to order forms and publications. This number is answered only by TTY/TDD equipment. The IRS Tax Help Line, Refund Hotline, and the TTY/TDD numbers are available from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. (local time) on weekdays. Alaska and Hawaii will follow Pacific Time. The services offered on the IRS toll-free lines are also available 24 hours a day 7 days a week on the Internet at IRS.gov. If, during the 5-year period ending on the date of sale, you owned the home for at least 2 years and lived in it as your main home for at least 2 years, you can exclude up to the maximum dollar limit. However, you cannot exclude the portion of the gain equal to depreciation allowed or allowable for periods after May 6, 1997. This gain is reported on Form 4797 (PDF),Sale of Business Property. Refer to Publication 523, Selling Your Home, and Form 4797 (PDF), Sale of Business Property, for specifics on calculating and reporting the amount of gain. I have investment property. Can you explain the term basis of assets? Basis is your investment in property for tax purposes. The difference between the selling price of your assets and your basis determines whether there is a taxable gain or loss on the disposition of your property. You need to determine your basis to figure allowable depreciation deductions as well. Your original basis is usually your cost to acquire the asset. Your adjusted basis (which is the basis you use to determine gain or loss or depreciation amounts) is the result of increasing or decreasing your original basis according to certain events. Increases to basis include but are not limited to: . Improvements having a useful life of more than a year . Assessments for local improvements . Sales tax . The cost of extending utilities lines to the property . Legal fees such as the cost of defending or perfecting title . Zoning costs Decreases to basis include but are not limited to: . Depreciation . Nontaxable corporate distributions . Casualty and theft losses . Easements . Rebates from the manufacturer or seller Additional information on basis can be found in Publication 551, Basis of Assets, or Tax Topic 703, Basis of Assets. To learn more about pork barrel spending visit http://www.cagw.org There you will see suggested cuts by CAGW-Citizens Against Government Waste-that would save an astonishing $232 billion (that's billion with a B), in one year and more than $2 trillion (that's trillion with a T) over 5 years. See Reports, Prime Cuts, paragraph 3
|
