Democrats Love To Spend Your Money
The cleanest, most ethical, most open Congress ever was the platforn the Pelosi/Reid act ran on to gain the majority in '06 but they are failing on every single issue. The latest Gallup poll only finds a 12% approval rating over their out of control spending of our tax dollars and various scandals the MSM is loath to cover like all those special loans to powerful Democrat Senators by a mortgage company seeking a bailout. Rep. John Campbell(R) is keeping tabs and reports on all the pork in recent funding bills that have come through the House.
This morning Citizens Against Government Waste released its preliminary report of 6 of the House’s appropriations bills, and already earmarks are at a higher level than that of last year. But you don’t have to take my word for it, look for yourself.
Commerce, Justice, Science: CAGW has documented 1,123 projects at a cost of $409.8 million.
Energy & Water: CAGW found 655 projects at a cost of $821 million.
Financial Services: There are 197 projects costing $57 million, which represents a 45 percent increase in projects and an 84 percent increase in dollar amounts from CAGW’s calculation for the fiscal year 2008 House bill.
Interior: For fiscal year 2009, CAGW has enumerated 247 projects at a cost of $134.9 million. In fiscal year 2008, CAGW found 226 projects worth $111 million in the House bill. The 2009 totals represent a 9.3 percent increase in projects and a 21.5 percent increase in dollar amount from 2008.
Labor/HHS: For fiscal year 2009, CAGW calculated that there are 1,370 earmarks at a cost of $618.8 million. In fiscal year 2008, CAGW found 1,305 projects costing $277.9 million in the House bill. The number of projects increased by 5 percent, but the dollar amount jumped by a whopping 122 percent.
Military Construction: CAGW found 102 earmarks costing $621.3 million.
3 comments:
Now you have my interest. First a question. Are all earmarks bad?
Now that you've answered that question (hoping that you do), here is my opinion. No, not all earmarks are bad. Why? Because some programs fall into the "seam." What's the "seam" you ask? Suppose a program is not on an agency's budget request in the 4th Q when it goes to the President. Now, a need or a requirement is identified. Do you go for an earmark? Or do you allow the program to languish until next year? I could write a book on this, but then I'd be providing instruction for free.
I wonder if you did more than copy and paste the Townhall article. As I've just looked at the Military Construction list (for your convenience this can be found at http://www.cagw.org/site/DocServer/House_Mil_Con.pdf?docID=3105. I have two questions. Which one of those projects shouldn't be done? Aside from the fact that the 102 earmarks listed on the document titled "Congressional Earmarks" are only those not requested by the President.
No, not all earmarks are bad. I would like to see the process as being open and open for debate. Many are uneeded and unwanted or go to enrich donors or family memebers and that is wrong.
Fox news did a special on many earmarks that enriched donors and/or family members, Goat. There is plenty of corruption by both Democrats and Republicans and we need to throw all crooks out of office, whichever party they belong to.
Post a Comment