Home › Blogs › Publius's blog ›

Democrats fight for earmark status quo

Submitted by Publius on Fri, 09/12/2008 - 17:08
in

A guest post from an anonymous insider on the Right.

In general, when Congress funds a specific product or program, companies engage in a competitive process to receive the money.  However, earmarks circumvent the process and allow Politicians to determine who gets the government funds.  Earmarks allow Politicians to fund their pet projects or provide benefits to companies which help fund their campaigns. 

For instance, General Motors has contributed $29,000 to Sen. Carl Levin's campaign.  In exchange, he earmarked $10 million dollars for them in the Department of Defense Appropriations Bill.  That's a substantial return on an investment.
 
Senator Levin apparently does not like the press he is receiving from his earmarking efforts (49 requests in this legislative cycle alone), so he has devised a scheme to cover up his activity - a scheme that threatens the entire fight against earmarks. 

I am reliably told that Senators DeMint and Senator Coburn are willing to go to war on this issue.

To cover up his activity, Senator Levin is attempting to place earmarks in committee reports instead of including them as part of the legislative language.  He did this by hiding some language in the Department of Defense Appropriations Bill which changes the way earmarks are viewed. 

Most senators don't bother to read legislative language and even fewer have time to read more extensive committee reports.  Under Senator Levin's cover up scheme, he can hide behind committee reports that are never voted on and talk out of both sides of his mouth by arguing that committee reports do not have the force of law.  What Levin will not tell you is that, because of the special language he slipped in, earmarks in committee reports do have the force of law.
 
Senator DeMint has an amendment (cosponsored by Senators Coburn and Burr) to strike the requirement that earmarks which have not been voted on in committee or otherwise be treated as law.  Senator DeMint attempted to offer his amendment to the Department of Defense Appropriations Bill on Thursday afternoon, but Senator Levin objected to even the right to debate the issue and would not allow Senator DeMint to introduce the amendment for consideration. 

Obviously, Senator Levin has something to hide.

If Senator DeMint is not allowed to offer his amendment, $5.9 billion in earmarks will be handed out at the taxpayers' expense without the benefit of any debate.

As the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Levin has the responsibility of writing the committee report and he can place anything in the report he chooses.  He has chosen to use his Chairmanship to the tune of $198 million.  And to cover it up so that the corrupt earmarking status quo would continue.

Senate Democrats promised more open government.  This is not it. 
 
Senator Levin announced on Thursday that cloture on the bill will be filed on Friday.  If cloture is invoked, America will suffer a $5.9 billion cover up.

4.5
Your rating: None Average: 4.5 (2 votes)

Comments

A little help here

Submitted by jdwill on Fri, 09/12/2008 - 18:07.

I am trying to get a better understanding of the scope of earmarks.

 In this Union Leader article 

Taxpayers for Common Sense reports the federal budget for 2008 includes 11,331 Congressional earmarks worth $15.3 billion.

or "less than 1 or 2 percent of the federal budget", according to U.S. senator, Republican Judd Gregg.

 However, this GAO 1995 Fact Sheet  states:

Our analysis showed that in fiscal year 1994 roughly $690 billion, or 47 percent, of total receipts from the public were earmarked in the federal budget. 

This infers we get receipts of a little more than a trillion dollars. I am assuming this what we have to spend each year, without going into debt, which I understand we are at some rate. So, is it true that our representatives are spending half of the discretionary money without any real scrutiny? Or are earmarks a red herring to distract us from some other venality?

Thanks in advance for any responses that help me with this this question.

 

PS This looks cool Visual Guide to Where Your Tax Dollars Go but I do not know how accurate it is. If it is true, I want Europe to start carrying more share of the military burden of policing the world.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I suspect that the difference is

Submitted by Soren Dayton on Sat, 09/13/2008 - 10:07.

between discretionary and mandatory spending.

You can't earmark social security money. When we talk about earmarks we are speaking mostly about direct appropriations. In addition to that, you have the Transportation Trust Fund,which earmarks projects. But I don't think that the circa-1994 transpo trust fund had these kinds of problems.

I think the SocSec budget is already out of this

Submitted by jdwill on Sat, 09/13/2008 - 17:21.

Soren,

Thanks for the reply.

Per the PDF and the budget graphic I linked, I agree the SocSec (payroll tax) money is not in any of the items I am looking at here.

What I am trying to figure out is if the GAO report showing that 50% of receipts are earmarked means the same thing as private earmarks, like the main posts reference to Levin's earmarks, or if it simply means 50% is earmarked for entrenched programs.

Since the discretionary budget of about a trillion dollars is roughly equal the receipts mentioned in the GAO report, I am pretty sure SocSec (and MediCare/MedicAid as well) are not in the flow that earmarks can happen to.

Anyway, the thing I want to know, are earmarks that big of a deal percentage-wise? Of the discretionary budget, that is.

Even if they aren't, they may still be a huge factor in corruption of our government. If a company can send 20K to help elect a representative, who then earmarks 100M for a project to reward the company, the private workaday citizens like me are priced out of democracy.
 

 

I am assuming this what we

Submitted by cicurug (not verified) on Wed, 09/02/2009 - 04:08.

I am assuming this what we have to spend each year, without going into debt, which I understand we are at some rate. ...thank you Stop Dreaming Start Action | Rusli Zainal Sang Visioner | kenali dan kunjungi objek wisata di pandeglang | mengembalikan jati diri bangsa | Sukabumi | lowongan kerja | webdesign murah

Demint

Submitted by rightasusual on Sat, 09/13/2008 - 07:31.

He is my senator - the other, who Shall Not Be Named (Lindsay Graham - spit!), is a disgrace to the party.

Please consider supporting Demint financially - I'd like him to stick around.  He is principled, and on the right side in most every fight.

Unlike you-know-who.

earmarks

Submitted by nlcatter on Sat, 09/13/2008 - 11:29.

Obama realises earmarks are not good and stopped last year requesting any.

 

Obama?

Submitted by hognose on Sat, 09/13/2008 - 19:05.

Obama sent a million dollar earmark to the hospital that employed his wife. The hospital more than doubled her salary. All earmarks are corruption and nothing but corruption.

The Washington Post "asked

Submitted by tomhanks15 on Wed, 07/29/2009 - 04:45.

The Washington Post "asked members of Congress and others whether federal budget earmarks are defensible." The three members of Congress whose responses were listed -- 642-845 exam Sen. John McCain (AZ), Rep. Ron Paul (TX) and Rep. Jeff Flake (AZ) -- are all Republicans; no Democratic members of Congress were quoted. The Post's omission of contributions by Democratic lawmakers is consistent with a pattern Media Matters for America has identified in the media of portraying earmarks as a practice unique to Democrats. In fact, 650-251 exam regarding the FY 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act that many of the contributors referenced, roughly 40 percent of the earmarks included in the appropriations act were reportedly requested by Republicans. None of the seven contributions provided by the Post noted that Republicans sponsored many of the earmarks in the appropriations act, or that an analysis by independent budget watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense reportedly found that six Republican senators are among the top 10 sponsors of earmarks in the appropriations act. 646-204 exam

As of November 4, 2008,

Submitted by lajiko on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 06:24.

As of November 4, 2008, Barack Obama had received more than twice as many publication endorsements as John McCain; in terms of circulation, the ratio was more than 3 to 1, according to the detailed tables below. Research Paper Help.
Regards,

great

Submitted by truballer2 (not verified) on Thu, 08/13/2009 - 09:55.

what a great article.

vigrx plus 

wow

Submitted by shaun pollack on Sat, 08/22/2009 - 00:49.

like the main posts reference to Levin's earmarks, or if it simply means 50% is earmarked for entrenched programs.

Since the discretionary budget of about a trillion dollars is roughly equal the receipts mentioned in the GAO report, I am pretty sure SocSec (and MediCare/MedicAid as well) are not in the flow that earmarks can happen to.

Regards,

shaun pollack - mahjong