Comments on: UPDATE: House GOP moves on earmarks

By: Jason Pye

Jason Pye — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 21:22:48 +0000

It’s only justified if it’s explicitly delegated to Congress as a function of Congress (Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution).

By: Redcatcher

Redcatcher — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 18:48:51 +0000

How about a moratorium on all entitlement programs? Kingston is playing a game. He wants to insure his relection to the most ECCW (Exclusive County Club in the World)
better know as the US Congress.

By: drjay

drjay — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:01:38 +0000

most of the earmarks that have come to ga have been for important and justifiable projects–its the ones that seem like quid pro quo’s or silly wastes of money that need to go–i am not opposed to reforming the system–but not sure we should throw the baby out w/ the bath water…

By: Dave Bearse

Dave Bearse — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 14:45:55 +0000

Legislators may know good uses of federal funds outside of established programs and departmental allocations. The effort and time spent on earmarks is excessive, and refusal to participate is damaging those that disdain the associated gamesmanship or disdain it on principle. Why not eliminate all earmarks except for $10,000,000 (or some smaller amount) allocated to each member of Congress to earmark?

The half billion cost would amount to less than 2% of the federal budget and significantly reduce the dollar value of earmarks. Legislators would have time to devote to more substantive manners, seniority/party leadership dynamics would change, and the manner in which legislators allocate their earmarks (or not allocate them) be revealing.

Likewise why not prohibit earmarks in Georgia except to allow General Assembly members say $500,000 each in earmarks, about 1/2% of the state budget?

By: AlanR

AlanR — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 14:08:33 +0000

I don’t think any further study is required:

Back in 1987, when Mr. Reagan applied his veto to what was generally known at the time as the highway and mass transit bill, he was offended by the 152 earmarks for pet projects favored by members of Congress. But on Wednesday Mr. Bush signed a transportation bill containing no fewer than 6,371 earmarks. . . .

Editorial, “Big-Government Conservatives,” Washington Post, August 15, 2005

By: Jace Walden

Jace Walden — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 14:08:15 +0000

Kingston: Georgia’s Porker-in-Chief

By: jeffgator

jeffgator — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 13:23:18 +0000

Earmarks account for what, 3-4% of the washington spending?

These guys are a joke out there grandstanding about earmarks.

Meanwhile the money truck pulls around to the back door and loads up 60-70% of the budget on entitlement programs.

Why does this remind me of the guy who yells – hey look over there!!! And while you glance away, he grabs your wallet.

By: Bull Moose

Bull Moose — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 05:08:42 +0000

I know that, for example, in transportation projects, earmarked projects receive funding from the already allocated funds and not additional funds. So when a Member of Congress puts in an earmark, that particular project is funded, while other projects and priorities set by local jurisdictions, are not funded.

The entire earmark process is bad and in my opinion, reflects the lazieness of today’s Congress. Earmarks are just a lazy way around transforming policy.

By: Bull Moose

Bull Moose — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 05:05:46 +0000

Despite the irony, and I get that part, better late than never I guess.

Though, I doubt it will go anywhere as there aren’t any Democratic co-sponsors to the bill and this will likely fall along party lines.

By: Jason Pye

Jason Pye — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 04:05:35 +0000

Rusty, you know that no member of Congress ever believes their pork is bad. The GOP has little room to talk about earmarks and spending.

By: Rusty

Rusty — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 04:01:36 +0000

LOL, he did this the same day that he asked the Bush Administration for $76 million to deepen a port in Savannah. Kingston is full of sh*t. This bill is bullsh*t posturing.

By: I Am Jacks Post

I Am Jacks Post — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 03:03:45 +0000

Agreed. The irony of Kingston taking on earmarks is quite rich. Fox and the hen house and such. And notice, he’s pushing an earmark study committee. What the crap is that? How about you step up and swear off earmarks altogether. Now that would be something.

Kingston is no reformer. And this is PR crap.

By: Romegaguy

Romegaguy — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 02:38:12 +0000

Oh the irony of having Kingston be the one to “lead” the fight against earmarks. Of course if he was really a leader on this subject he wouldnt ask for any earmarks regardless of what happens with the legislation or with the special committee…