Democrats hide pet projects from voters
- Thread starter Monadnock
- Start date
Blotan Hunka
Master Black Belt
I predict the Democrat guard dogs will descend onto this thread in short order. I predict the initial response will be to ignore the topic and point out all the evils perpetrated by Republicans.
Exactly. The system is broken.
I think the system is fine. Too many people are broken.
I disagree. People are people, but the system itself encourages abuse. Everything, from the amount of money involved to the very rules that protect corruption, is a tool that aids a candidate's slide. And that's just the tip of the iceberg...
michaeledward
Grandmaster
It's been so long since someone from the Republican side of the house has dared to raise an objection to the Democratic side of the house. I wonder if there is anything we can read into that.
Moving on, this from the article:
I would like very much to see a recorded incident of any lawmaker objecting to any earmark before a bill's passage.
The article, its conclusions, and the original posters' apparent intent in posting it, are all more about obfuscation that addressing a topic. Earmarks are objected to by citizens after bills and laws have been passed. During the legislative process, the unspoken, unwritten rule is ~ you don't object to my earmarks, and I won't object to your earmarks.
No, the author of the article is attempting to insinuate something nefarious, where that is just not the case.
Question - How long was the USA Patriot Act debated prior to its approval? You'll recall that our legislators did not even READ the BILL before approving it ~ so to suggest debating earmarks dropped in underneath a bill is ever going to be a priority is ludicris.
Moving on, this from the article:
I would like very much to see a recorded incident of any lawmaker objecting to any earmark before a bill's passage.
The article, its conclusions, and the original posters' apparent intent in posting it, are all more about obfuscation that addressing a topic. Earmarks are objected to by citizens after bills and laws have been passed. During the legislative process, the unspoken, unwritten rule is ~ you don't object to my earmarks, and I won't object to your earmarks.
No, the author of the article is attempting to insinuate something nefarious, where that is just not the case.
Question - How long was the USA Patriot Act debated prior to its approval? You'll recall that our legislators did not even READ the BILL before approving it ~ so to suggest debating earmarks dropped in underneath a bill is ever going to be a priority is ludicris.
Crushing - How's THIS for a fact that supports my case?
BTW Mike - The Democrats ran on how corrupt the Republicans had become and they ended up taking control of congress. And I can see your point about how the Republicans are doing everything they can to point the finger the other way. My question is this, when do we all step back see this for what it is...the pot is calling the kettle black?
michaeledward
Grandmaster
John,
This article was not prepared by a member of the Republican Party, but rather by a member of the "liberal media".
If we can't read the article for what it is actually saying, we can't properly evaluate an appropriate response.
Some of the language in the article is interesting. For instance:
This language is also interesting:
Now certainly, if the appropriations committee has received 36,000 earmark requests in this legislative session, then something should be considered. How about creating a web space that lists those earmark requests, and the congressperson making the request. And putting it online TODAY. And, for extra measure, we could cross link the data to a list of publically available campaign contributors.
If Congress has stated that requests for earmarks will be identified by the requestors' name, and they agree to do that at the end of the bill conference; aren't they doing what they said they would do? Isn't the problem the citizens' assumptions that the identification would be at the beginning of the process?
I'm not saying that I approve. I wonder if all the earmarks (which exploded under Republican Congresses) were a tactic to bring about debate on the Line Item Veto. I still would be against a Line Item Veto. A President could veto an entire appropriations bill and demand removal of specific of general earmarks; with a little political fortitude.
Although the article is not 100% spin and 0% fact ... I do see it weighted more toward spin (and attack) than fact.
P.S. -- here's a link to the approriations committee
http://appropriations.house.gov/members110th.shtml
See if you congressman is listed, and contact him in support of 'sunshine'.
This article was not prepared by a member of the Republican Party, but rather by a member of the "liberal media".
If we can't read the article for what it is actually saying, we can't properly evaluate an appropriate response.
Some of the language in the article is interesting. For instance:
Why are there no specific requests referenced? It is possible that there are no current requests in play. This sentence should properly have a subordinate clause included in it:In the past, or the author should validate the statement. If there are current requests in play, totalling this amount, list them.
This language is also interesting:
I would say that the anticedent of the pronoun 'step' is extremely unclear. As I read the article, the "STEP" being discussed is: to keep the bills free of such earmarks, which is at least five paragraphs preceeding in the article. As a citizen, I would hope that my congressmen are debating the issues of legislation when they debate legislation. Having lawmakers introduce the earmarks (payoffs) might have the effect of legislators not debating the bill and its consequences. Don't you think that would be bad?
Now certainly, if the appropriations committee has received 36,000 earmark requests in this legislative session, then something should be considered. How about creating a web space that lists those earmark requests, and the congressperson making the request. And putting it online TODAY. And, for extra measure, we could cross link the data to a list of publically available campaign contributors.
If Congress has stated that requests for earmarks will be identified by the requestors' name, and they agree to do that at the end of the bill conference; aren't they doing what they said they would do? Isn't the problem the citizens' assumptions that the identification would be at the beginning of the process?
I'm not saying that I approve. I wonder if all the earmarks (which exploded under Republican Congresses) were a tactic to bring about debate on the Line Item Veto. I still would be against a Line Item Veto. A President could veto an entire appropriations bill and demand removal of specific of general earmarks; with a little political fortitude.
Although the article is not 100% spin and 0% fact ... I do see it weighted more toward spin (and attack) than fact.
P.S. -- here's a link to the approriations committee
http://appropriations.house.gov/members110th.shtml
See if you congressman is listed, and contact him in support of 'sunshine'.
upnorth, I recall that legislators did not read the Patriot Act before approving it. In fact, that still has me thinking they are the broken ones, not the system. Perhaps we have different ideas of what the 'system' is?
Also, I don't think it's just the politicians that are broken, but also a significant portion of the few people that do tend to vote. Heck, I'm a little broken myself as I try to figure out what is really going on and the media takes the easy tidbits handed to them and they make stories out of it.
This gets back to how we define the system. I saw it as the system of government. I do understand that system may also include the politicians not excercising due diligence in their responsbilities and voters, well, doing the same. If your definition includes such people, then we are in agreement.
Also, I don't think it's just the politicians that are broken, but also a significant portion of the few people that do tend to vote. Heck, I'm a little broken myself as I try to figure out what is really going on and the media takes the easy tidbits handed to them and they make stories out of it.
This gets back to how we define the system. I saw it as the system of government. I do understand that system may also include the politicians not excercising due diligence in their responsbilities and voters, well, doing the same. If your definition includes such people, then we are in agreement.
I'll agree with that. This article's seems to be intended to stir up trouble. Still, in the overall big picture, I think some of it is indicative of a larger pattern.
My congressmen is actually David Obey and he is the head of the committee. I've met Mr. Obey on several occasions and he struck me as a pretty honest guy. With that being said, I had the occasion to ask a couple of really specific questions about his voting record and I was not impressed with the answers. There's alot of wheeling and dealing going on under the table and even a guy like Mr. Obey doesn't always do what he thinks is right.
Think of it this way. How much would the system really change if every incumbent was suddenly supplanted? The same rules would still exist. The same environment sould still exist. The same amount of money and influence would still be there.
It would only be a matter of time for this new group...
mrhnau
Senior Master
You are right about that. I've been contemplating things I would change lately. Reinstall the independant council law. Find some new way of monitoring and prosecuting officials. And I mean EVERY official. Increase the number of sting operations and actually prosecute those that comply.
Until then, the only way as individuals can change things is by voting out those that are corrupt. However, as you point out, its more likely than not just replacing one evil for another.
I don't know... There are times I'd almost prefer conscripting someone for certain positions. Get career politicians out of office. I don't know.. There are alot of things I'd enjoy changing if I had free reign of laws.
FearlessFreep
Senior Master
The more I consider the issue of the nature of how the gorvernment works today the more I come to think that the real problem is how the two major political parties have developed a ruleset whereby government decisions are driven by party politics.
One of the most obvious examples is how commitee charimanships are assigned based on party affiliation and within that by party ranking. Since what bills make it into and out of committee is based on what the chair of the party decides, to a great degree, that gives one party un-representative control over what the legislature spends it's time on. If one party has a two seat majority, that party gets to assign all the charis to all the committees. A two seat majority may leave enough room for crossing party lines to vote on anything that comes before the floor, but just about nothing will see the floor that the majority party does not want to. The result is that the party that the country has given a slim majority to by popular vote has power to drive the agenda of the legislature, far beyond the level of control that one would assume based on popular vote precentages.
Now consider this....
State 1 has 1 Billion voters
State 2 has 500 Million voters
State 3 hs 250 Million voters
In an election, 200 million people in State 3 vote for the candidate from Party A and 50 Million in State 3 for the candate from Party B
in State 2, 225 M vote for a candidate from Party A and 275M for the candidate from party B
In State 1, 475M vote for Party A, 525M for party B
Now if you add it up, Party B won two races and Party A won only one...and yet 900M people voted for candidates from Party A and only 850M for Party B. However by nature of the legislative rules, Party B now wields a lot of power and by nature of politics and public relations, Party B now claims a mandate rom the voters to do it's political will.
Having a majority of the seats in a house or senate does *not* mean that you have gotten the most votes for your agenda from the people. Aggregating the results of a collection of local elections into a mandate for a national agenda is disingenious. However, because of the issue of committee chairs being assigned by party majority, the parties can turnd PR spin about 'mandate' into real political power and as a result steer the direction of the country with an influence far greater than given them by the voters.
A side issue of that is senority. If 5 senior incumbants from the ruling party are relected, and 20 freshmen are newly elected, then there is room to say that the majority of voters within a given party are trying to establish a new direction. Yet, the most powerful committee chairmanships will go to the most senior party members.
I don't know what the solution is, but I will say that any true solution must involve getting party mechanics out of the appointment of committee positions, or the will of the people will always be second to the politcal power motivations of the party bosses.
One of the most obvious examples is how commitee charimanships are assigned based on party affiliation and within that by party ranking. Since what bills make it into and out of committee is based on what the chair of the party decides, to a great degree, that gives one party un-representative control over what the legislature spends it's time on. If one party has a two seat majority, that party gets to assign all the charis to all the committees. A two seat majority may leave enough room for crossing party lines to vote on anything that comes before the floor, but just about nothing will see the floor that the majority party does not want to. The result is that the party that the country has given a slim majority to by popular vote has power to drive the agenda of the legislature, far beyond the level of control that one would assume based on popular vote precentages.
Now consider this....
State 1 has 1 Billion voters
State 2 has 500 Million voters
State 3 hs 250 Million voters
In an election, 200 million people in State 3 vote for the candidate from Party A and 50 Million in State 3 for the candate from Party B
in State 2, 225 M vote for a candidate from Party A and 275M for the candidate from party B
In State 1, 475M vote for Party A, 525M for party B
Now if you add it up, Party B won two races and Party A won only one...and yet 900M people voted for candidates from Party A and only 850M for Party B. However by nature of the legislative rules, Party B now wields a lot of power and by nature of politics and public relations, Party B now claims a mandate rom the voters to do it's political will.
Having a majority of the seats in a house or senate does *not* mean that you have gotten the most votes for your agenda from the people. Aggregating the results of a collection of local elections into a mandate for a national agenda is disingenious. However, because of the issue of committee chairs being assigned by party majority, the parties can turnd PR spin about 'mandate' into real political power and as a result steer the direction of the country with an influence far greater than given them by the voters.
A side issue of that is senority. If 5 senior incumbants from the ruling party are relected, and 20 freshmen are newly elected, then there is room to say that the majority of voters within a given party are trying to establish a new direction. Yet, the most powerful committee chairmanships will go to the most senior party members.
I don't know what the solution is, but I will say that any true solution must involve getting party mechanics out of the appointment of committee positions, or the will of the people will always be second to the politcal power motivations of the party bosses.
OP
OP
Monadnock
2nd Black Belt
Well, without going off on even more tangents and redirects (a common tactic of the left, since they have...."feelings") there are two points that were brought to my attention after reading the article.
1. Irregardless of whether earmarks were ever debated past or present, "Rules" were put in place by the Democrats the January they took office, as if the light went off with these people and they decided people should have some code to follow. Wow, there's an idea.
2. These rules, were subsequently and overtly ignored.
All in all, it's been seen before. What's usually new and exciting is how they go about defending it. One way is to leave out relevent information. The article gives examples of earmarks and how they could add up to billions of dollars. When little details like these are left out, it is usually to hide something, or unfairly attempt to weaken the other side's arguement.
It's hypocracy really. The Dems complained about an open check for the war in Iraq (really about sending money to support the troops) so they try a 180 and say they'll be their own watchdogs for their own porkbarrel spending. But they can't.
michaeledward
Grandmaster
Tangents and redirects? If one doesn't say "Gee Mr. Mike, You're exactly right about everything", it's a redirect?
The "light went off" when the senior senator from Alaska wanted half a billion dollars to build a bridge to his family's property on an island with 87 residents.
The rules have not been ignored at all. Earmarks will be identified by name of the representative adding the earmark. That is the rule they promised. That is the rule we are going to get, isn't it?
michaeledward
Grandmaster
Jay O'Connor, I wanted to quote your entire post ... because so much there is very true.
I would say that is ironic that you notice this information now that the Democratic Party is in the majority, but weren't speaking up to these points when Congressman Conyers was unable to hold committee meetings the in the normal facilities, because the Republican Majority wouldn't allow him to schedule the comittee room.
The Republican majority in the Senate over the preceeding six (or five) years, was not a majority at all. Because the Senate has two representatives for each State, the Senators from California are representing far more citizens than the Senators from Alaska. It always has been this way.
And while Congressional districts are supposed to be drawn to represent equal numbers of citizens for each district, because of the ten year census and district reallocation, often Representatives serve unequal representation, too.
But, whether it is seniority or party affiliation, I think you would find in most cases, the political weight leans toward the liberal side of opinion.
I would suggest you carefully consider what you wish for. The United States is a very liberal country in attitude. If we start getting representation for the citizens' attitudes, we may get a very different looking country.
FearlessFreep
Senior Master
I would say that is ironic that you notice this information now that the Democratic Party is in the majority....
Not really. The change over in power from one Party to the other simply throws such issues into sharp relief and the subject of "Party A is doing what they complained about Party B doing before" had not come up in a way that I felt worth addressing.
I would suggest you carefully consider what you wish for. The United States is a very liberal country in attitude. If we start getting representation for the citizens' attitudes, we may get a very different looking country.
I think you greatly misunderstand my socio-political motvations
Not really. The change over in power from one Party to the other simply throws such issues into sharp relief and the subject of "Party A is doing what they complained about Party B doing before" had not come up in a way that I felt worth addressing.
I would suggest you carefully consider what you wish for. The United States is a very liberal country in attitude. If we start getting representation for the citizens' attitudes, we may get a very different looking country.
I think you greatly misunderstand my socio-political motvations
michaeledward
Grandmaster
I think the complaints from Party A in the past few session of Congress was that Party B was writing legislation without Party A's participation. Party A Committee members were literally locked out of committee rooms.
If that is going on now, please post a link. I don't think it is the case.
I did notice that Party B was upset about having to work on Monday afternoon and Friday morning.
