GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Bush's plan to halve earmarks getting mixed reviews

• 43751
  

  Speaker Pelosi will likely be holding her head in shame when Dusty Foggo is tried in Alexandria soon! None of us should forget her words of how one person's earmark is another's necessity! Much of Foggo's illicit activities were made possible via money set aside by earmarks! Hint: his loyalty is to our greatest of enemies! I know because my employer was the target of his shell companies, strawmen, etc. and we have a longstanding history (more than 6 years) of being deported into enemy control facillitated via earmarks.

  Dawn Posted February 16, 2008 10:17 PM
• 42929
  

  When Earmark spending is put to the light of the voters it would not look very pretty. My opinion is that this type of legislation is Unconstitutional as it is never discussed on the open floor and approved by an open recorded vote of our elected officials. Typical back door behavior for people who have lost touch with the people who have put them in office!! Vote all of the bums out and start over with the first agenda item being the outlawing of Pork Barrel Earmarks!!

  Mark Glass Posted February 4, 2008 11:49 AM
• 42790
  

  I am as frustrated by wasteful earmarks as the next person. I did hear an interesting viewpoint from Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va) when he announced he won't seek re-election. He said he has put earmarks for transportation projects in northern Virginia because the VA Department of Transportation decides which highway projects are priorities and when the funding goes directly to Richmond, the decision-makers in VDOT don't select projects in Northern Virginia.

  Martha Posted February 1, 2008 10:33 AM
• 42735
  

  its a same sh is so stupid and keeps getting elected. The president submits a budget with his "priorities" that are then voted up or down by congress they are never "earmarks" only a bafoon would comment that way

  dan m ketter Posted January 31, 2008 5:54 PM
• 42711
  

  At this point in time Bush is the one that is pulling the strings. No one else can do what he and his side kick does. That Lady that is there side kick, has no other option. She is from California and I think she has no other option in this matter. Just think about it. I can assure you this info would be set, she has no option.

  Wilma V Ranger Posted January 31, 2008 1:26 PM
• 42556
  

  I love the response that "they got to do it, why can't we?" Get out of your sandbox, Ms. Pelosi. The fact is that it shouldn't have gone on before and now that it's at the public's attention, it's time to stop the waste. Quit whining that you don't get to be as corrupt as you could have been a few years ago.

  GW Posted January 30, 2008 8:49 AM
• 42541
  

  Since this discussion is about my money let me tell you how it is supposed to be. Congress does not need earmarks. If they want statue's, and roads, and bridges to nowhere with their names on them!! Spend the money from your pockets not mine! All the money for earmarks should be infused into the economy,and/or health care. While your at it how about a few billion from a drug war that was already lost about 30 years ago.

  Mike Kelley Posted January 30, 2008 7:44 AM
• 42518
  

  Ms. Pelosi's comments actually fall short of what is needed. Presidential earmarks should be the first to go. Congress controls the money. That's what the Constitution says. But this executive branch has shown nothing but contempt and disregard for our Constitution since day one.

  K D Posted January 29, 2008 5:51 PM
• 42514
  

  I must agree that earmarks provide a shot in the local economies of the states where they are designated and increase jobs. As for the bridges to nowhere, imagine where New York and San Francisco would be today without their share of bridge money!

  Marvin Posted January 29, 2008 5:10 PM
• 42508
  

  Another question - isn't it illegal to buy someone's vote? Yet, isn't this in fact what the 'earmarks' are doing? There is just something not right about passing a bill that contains portions not visible and voted on.

  Sharon Posted January 29, 2008 2:54 PM
• 42500
  

  Congress knows best on how to spend your money. Especially since earmarks show thier district that they deserve to be re-elected. I think that there should be no additions or ammendments to any given bill unless it relates directly to that bill. Everything should stand public scrutiny. Cockroaches hide when the lights come on.

  Dennis Posted January 29, 2008 1:13 PM
• 42499
  

  At what cost are these earmarks being delivered to individual consituencies in a non-competitive manner? Nearly $17 Billion to fund 10,700 earmarks. Another way of looking at this--at approximately $275 Million per day, this funding could be used to finance the Iraq war for approximately 62 days. So, in relative terms, maybe earmarks are a relative bargain....

  Steve Posted January 29, 2008 1:06 PM
• 42494
  

  I would like to know this.How does the quantity and costs of the FY08 earmarks compare to previous seven years of Republican controlled Congress? Did the democrats exceed the annual amount the republicans had averaged? That President Bush has all suddenly become a fiscal hawk over earmarks once the Democrats came into power is aa little hypocritical in my view.

  Ronald Snyder Posted January 29, 2008 12:20 PM
• 42488
  

  I must be missing something. If the money is to be spent for a good cause then what's the problem with making it visible and being voted on. If there is a problem with that visibility then perhaps the money is not going to such a good cause and should not be allowed. No successful business spends money without being held accountable for every penny. Time to be held accountable folks - you're spending our money.

  Sharon Posted January 29, 2008 11:50 AM
• 42487
  

  The irony of course being that the earmarks, as much as they are detested, are also responsible for jobs and economic stimulus.

  Rob Bragaw Posted January 29, 2008 11:38 AM
• 42464
  

  I and many Americans hate the Pork-barrel issues which cost the Taxpayers unnecessary taxes. Congress is in office to represent & improve the country not their pet issues. We need wise men and women in Congress to set aside their personal beliefs and strive to keep America strong & effective both in financial and Security issues. A goal for all of Congress and the President should be to decrease the National Debt, are we selling ourselves to foreign interests?

  American Taxpayer Posted January 29, 2008 9:32 AM
• 42455
  

  I wish I knew where they are getting the money for all these earmarks!! Come to that, I think the economic package would be a lot better if it contained a provision that all the money going to businesses MUST be used for improvements in their operations in the United States and could not under any circumstances be used to improve their overseas operations. I totally fail to see how improving overseas operations will help the United States economy.

  Larry R. Doane Posted January 29, 2008 8:35 AM
• 42453
  

  OK Pelosi - lets list all the earmarks and debate which ones are necessary. I suspect not many.

  R Lynch Posted January 29, 2008 8:15 AM
• 42450
  

  Since an important project to one person is pork to another, why not give every member of Congress a set amount of money to use for whatever project they deem worthy? That way, there is a definite number for the budget and the members of Congress must to answer to their constituency about how they spent the money. I can't say this plan would be any better than the current method but I don't think it could be any worse.

  Lane Narrows Posted January 29, 2008 8:07 AM
• 42449
  

  Please take Ms. Pelosi up on her contention. Any way to save a buck.... Elimenate all earmarks since they seldom stand the light of day....Remember the bridge to nowhere

  richard Posted January 29, 2008 8:03 AM