Home subscribe manage Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon

Opinion


EDITORIAL: Democratic earmark reforms lasted 100 days

When Democrats took control of Congress four months back, incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., bragged it would take her party less than 100 hours to curb wasteful pork spending by requiring members to attach their names to their "earmarks," exposing such waste to the harsh light of public scrutiny.

She failed to mention this "reform" would remain in effect for little more than 100 days.

Newsvine Digg Fark Technorati reddit StumbleUpon del.icio.us Slashdot Propeller Mixx Furl Twitter MySpace Facebook Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Bookmarks Windows Live Favorites Ask MyStuff myAOL Favorites

Most Popular Stories
  • ERIN NEFF: Sarah Palin: It's just wrong
  • EDITORIAL: Risky loans
  • EDITORIAL: A failure of leadership
  • VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: The biggest armed robbery in history
  • LETTERS: To fix crisis, vote incumbents out
  • LETTERS: Crushing freedom for the 'greater good'
  • LETTERS: Bill must hold CEOs accountable
  • EDITORIAL: VP debate unlikely to change minds
  • LETTERS: Consumers deserve another stimulus check
  • EDITORIAL: What funding crisis?



  • At this point, "Democrats are sidestepping rules approved their first day in power in January to clearly identify 'earmarks' -- lawmakers' requests for specific projects and contracts for their states -- in documents that accompany spending bills," The Associated Press reported Monday.

    "Rather than including specific pet projects, grants and contracts in legislation as it is being written, Democrats are following an order by the House Appropriations Committee chairman to keep the bills free of such earmarks until it is too late for critics to effectively challenge them," The AP continued.

    Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., now says those requests for billions of dollars to finance home-district dams, bridges and research contracts won't be added to spending measures till the fall, when House and Senate negotiators assemble final bills to send to the president. But that means few lawmakers will get a chance to oppose specific projects.

    Rep. Obey insists he's taking the step "reluctantly" because his Appropriations Committee hasn't had time to fully review the 36,000 earmark requests that have come flooding in -- despite all the Democrats' talk of "reform."

    But predictably, watchdog groups who "scrub" appropriations bills for questionable provisions are outraged.

    "What that does is leave out the public's input," objects Tom Schatz, president of Citizens Against Government Waste.

    "This is not more sunlight," agrees Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz. "This is actually keeping earmarks secret until it's too late to do anything about it."

    The House-Senate compromise bills cannot be amended when they come up for final action in September, at which point they're subject to only one hour of debate, precluding challenges.

    Meantime, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., chuckled and accepted congratulatory handshakes on May 22 after his fellow Democrats banded together to permanently table (219-189) an official reprimand of the Pennsylvania Democrat for violating his party's own four-month-old rule barring "revenge killing" of other members' earmarks.

    The whole point of the Democratic "reform" was to allow other members to criticize and oppose pork set-asides. But last month, when Rep. Murtha (the second-ranking Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, a man so powerful that he secured more than $200 million for his personal pet projects in 2006 alone, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense) sponsored an earmark to authorize $23 million for the National Drug Intelligence Center -- a government agency that happens to be based in his district -- Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., a former FBI agent, had the nerve to rise and propose the allocation be canceled.

    Rep. Rogers was acting in accordance with the Bush administration's desire to close the office, which duplicates services provided by the FBI and which has received repeated low marks from several federal review boards.

    Rep. Rogers' attempt to cut the $23 million failed. Despite that, on May 17 an outraged Rep. Murtha -- who in his failed bid for majority leader described the ethics package in a private meeting with lawmakers as "total crap" -- approached Rep. Rogers on the House floor.

    "I hope you don't have any earmarks in the defense appropriation bill because they are gone, and you will not get any earmarks now and forever," the now-tabled resolution quotes Rep. Murtha as telling Rep. Rogers.

    Rep. Murtha has never disputed Rep. Rogers' account. He doesn't have to. He knows he will never be disciplined for violating Ms. Pelosi's reforms, because he had it right the first time. The "anti-earmark reforms" are just for show. Mere window dressing. Why, if we enjoyed the immunities of a colorful old Democratic congressman, we might even call them "total crap."



    Leave Your Comment 10 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    Rhonda wrote on June 29, 2007 01:30 PM: What both parties are doing is poloarizing the US with all of their mudd slinging back and forth. I am sickened by the divisiveness of our government. The ones that are hurt to most are us "We The People" or did they forget that we pay their salaries. Look the Democratic party is trying and the Republician party rubber stamped everyone that this corrupt administration has done. I ditto the comments from Jon and Anthony.


    Jon Hamel wrote on June 07, 2007 08:28 AM: Anthony . . . you appear to be politically savvy and literate based on your two posts contained in this thread. However, consider again your last closing argument: “And yet Democrats are the corrupt and power-mad?” Now, consider my argument that both Republicans and Democrats in fact are both corrupt and power-mad. I would argue that our current form of Government, that being a majority rule Democracy assures that end result over time. Since the time of Adams and Jefferson a battle has been waged between the concept of a Republic which supports the rule of law as written in our Constitution and the political system of a Majority rule Democracy where the rule of man dominates the rule of law. In part, we fought a Civil war over this issue. After the Civil war the passage of the 14th amendment was to help assure the State Government’s recognition of natural human rights, as enumerated in the first ten amendments of the US Constitution. Then the country entered the Progressive era and we were again on the path of a Majority rule Democracy, the people had spoken, or had got suckered in depending on your point of view. Then when the Keynesian School of economic theory became popular, our Government found a good reason to expand its regulation, and thus controlling, of the private sector of our country. Since then our country has drifted away from adhering to our Western Philosophical traditions of Individual Freedom and Liberty. We are on the move to a Collective form of Government, Corrupt and power-mad persons in Government are simply enabled. In a limited rule Republic, the same person simply would not be enabled.


    Anthony wrote on June 05, 2007 10:55 PM: "corrupt, power-mad, elitist politicians."

    That describes the idiots in the GOP who have run this country into the ground over the last 12 years by:

    - shutting down the Federal Government because the Speaker of the House felt like he got snubbed

    - impeaching a President whose popularity was in the low 60% range, only to see him leave office with a higher rating than when he was sworn in

    - turning the first budget surplus in 30 years into a budget deficit, then allowing the President to "cook the books" by continuing to allow Iraq war funding to be treated as off-the-books "supplementals" so that the deficit looks smaller than it really is

    - doing nothing but rubber-stamping everything the current President wanted, and loudly braying that even the slightest amount of oversight was not permitted because, by God, we were at war

    - rushing back in the middle of the night to usurp state judicial authority because they didn't like the decision made by a constitutionally-recognized court

    And yet Democrats are the corrupt and power-mad? What color is the sky where you live?


    Bill Sanford wrote on June 05, 2007 07:31 PM: These Democrats are the same ones that contolled the House for 40 years... up until 1994. Why would ANYONE expect them to be any different than they were? They're simply picking up where they left off - corrupt, power-mad, elitist politicians.


    Beytovin wrote on June 05, 2007 12:23 PM: 'Tis a wonder of the modern world that there aren't any political assassinations in this once-great nation...


    Robbie wrote on June 05, 2007 11:40 AM: If the Democrats lose control of Congress in 2008, a big reason will be that their entire election platform was a sack of lies.

    They promised to drain the swamp? Instead we have the most ethically-challenged Congress ever --- and growing dirtier by the day.

    They promised to end the Iraq war. But every time they've been given the opportunity to do so (by voting to defund the war), they've folded like cheap lawn chairs.

    The only thing that changed in 2006 was the majority/minority status of each party.


    Mike Argeline wrote on June 05, 2007 08:07 AM: No truer words have ever been spoken.
    Funny,I haven't heard a word about this on the evening news.What a shock.....NOT


    pete wrote on June 05, 2007 07:58 AM: Unfortunately, the only people who can vote these representatives out are the same people who benefit from their pork. Little chance nothing will get done about it.


    Anthony wrote on June 05, 2007 07:49 AM: You're wrong.

    Under current House rules, Congressman Murtha has no power over appropriations requests made by members of the Republican party. Those appropriations are controlled by the Ranking Member of the Appropriations Committee - Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-California).


    Steve wrote on June 05, 2007 05:57 AM: Only a complete fool would be surprised by this. As long as the American voter keeps voting these criminals back into office, nothing will change. If the voter wants to get control of pork spending and all of the other criminal activities in Congress, they need to vote out the incumbent until the members of Congress get the idea they are there to represent the voters and not themselves and special interests. Sadly, the American voter doesn't seem to care and Congress knows that.