D?j? vu all over again?

[BeachSiO2]

Good post Punzy and this is exactly what I was talking about and why I am glad that the primary season is over. It's time to move past rhetoric, speeches and primary partisanship to see what people are actually doing.

 

[Gypsea]

Well, I was particularly impressed with the legislastion he proposed in the Senate yesterday -

The Strengthening Transparency and Accountability in Federal Spending Act of 2008 is the culmination of a bipartisan effort by Senator Barack Obama and Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK). Senator Tom Carper (D-DE) and Senator John McCain co-sponsored the bill. Yes, Obama's such a shark, so ready to rip people to shreds that he let McCain sign on as a co-sponsor.

from http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2008/06/obama_introd.html

The good news is that, regardless of the outcome of this election and whether we continue on the road to becoming a country without a middle class -- and those are so pleasant to live in -- perhaps some of us should think of moving to Haiti or Malawi ?-- we will see a change in the influence peddling that has become the business of our government.

it when they can work together!!!

 

[30ashopper]

Well, I was particularly impressed with the legislastion he proposed in the Senate yesterday -

The Strengthening Transparency and Accountability in Federal Spending Act of 2008 is the culmination of a bipartisan effort by Senator Barack Obama and Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK). Senator Tom Carper (D-DE) and Senator John McCain co-sponsored the bill. Yes, Obama's such a shark, so ready to rip people to shreds that he let McCain sign on as a co-sponsor.

from http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2008/06/obama_introd.html

The good news is that, regardless of the outcome of this election and whether we continue on the road to becoming a country without a middle class -- and those are so pleasant to live in -- perhaps some of us should think of moving to Haiti or Malawi ?-- we will see a change in the influence peddling that has become the business of our government.

I think you'll get a transparency/coruption fighting president in both of them. Now that's a good sign! Now if we could just swap out every congressman we'd be in business.

 

[Linda]

I think you'll get a transparency/coruption fighting president in both of them. Now that's a good sign! Now if we could just swap out every congressman we'd be in business.

Or at the very least do away with the 60 BILLION dollars of earmarks that they squander away every year with our taxpayer dollars

 

[BeachSiO2]

Or at the very least do away with the 60 BILLION dollars of earmarks that they squander away every year with our taxpayer dollars

I agree that some of the $60 billion goes to bad projects, but some of it is truly a rebate to low income, or rural communities of the money that their own citizens paid in federal taxes. Plus the overall budget in 2007/08 is over $3 trillion. Is the 60 billion (aka less than 2% of the total budget) really the problem? I think the overall tax scheme is the problem.

Here's something that almost no one realizes. In 2006/07, the budget negotiations led to the passage of a number of omnibus bills where the majority of line item appropriations (earmarks) were not included and thus the money was doled out by the government agencies. Keep in mind the amount of money was NOT reduced, the funding mechanism was altered. In regards to one issue, transportation, the majority of money was appropriated via the agency. Now, here's the kicker. How much of that money went to a small handful of major metropolitan areas, and how much went to rural communities like northwest Florida. Let me tell you, almost none to small communities and almost all to larger metropolitan areas. Is that fair and equal government? If earmarks were truly removed, the budget would not decrease. Any politician that says that they will reduce the overall spending due to earmarks is LYING, and if not we are only talking about TWO PERCENT max.

So what they are really saying is we will reduce the amount of money that lower income and more rural communities will be reduced because I guarantee that Phoenix and Chicago will be well taken care of if govenment agencies have their druthers (bye bye forever Hwy 331 bridge).

IMO, it is sad that the government that allocates 100% of our tax dollars is tricky enough to make the general public think that 2% is the problem. I think its time for us all to get a reality check and demand that we all get a "rebate" back for the money we pay in and not just the bigger cities.

 

[Linda]

I agree that some of the $60 billion goes to bad projects, but some of it is truly a rebate to low income, or rural communities of the money that their own citizens paid in federal taxes. Plus the overall budget in 2007/08 is over $3 trillion. Is the 60 billion (aka less than 2% of the total budget) really the problem? I think the overall tax scheme is the problem. Here's something that almost no one realizes. In 2006/07, the budget negotiations led to the passage of a number of omnibus bills where the majority of line item appropriations (earmarks) were not included and thus the money was doled out by the government agencies. Keep in mind the amount of money was NOT reduced, the funding mechanism was altered. In regards to one issue, transportation, the majority of money was appropriated via the agency. Now, here's the kicker. How much of that money went to a small handful of major metropolitan areas, and how much went to rural communities like northwest Florida. Let me tell you, almost none to small communities and almost all to larger metropolitan areas. Is that fair and equal government? If earmarks were truly removed, the budget would not decrease. Any politician that says that they will reduce the overall spending due to earmarks is LYING, and if not we are only talking about TWO PERCENT max.

So what they are really saying is we will reduce the amount of money that lower income and more rural communities will be reduced because I guarantee that Phoenix and Chicago will be well taken care of if govenment agencies have their druthers (bye bye forever Hwy 331 bridge).

IMO, it is sad that the government that allocates 100% of our tax dollars is tricky enough to make the general public think that 2% is the problem. I think its time for us all to get a reality check and demand that we all get a "rebate" back for the money we pay in and not just the bigger cities.

There is massive corruption associated with earmarks. It may not be "the" problem but it is definitely part of the problem. IMO

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,361061,00.html

 

[BeachSiO2]

There is massive corruption associated with earmarks. It may not be "the" problem but it is definitely part of the problem. IMO

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,361061,00.html

I looked at your link and like I said in the outset of my post, there are definitely some bad projects out there. However, it appears by what they at least listed on the web page, this was before the new transparency rules went into effect. Now, the sponsor is required to attach his or her name onto the spending bills. So, most members will be less likely to face the public scrutiny of requesting those bad projects. Plus, it will make it easier to track down whether or not the projects benefit a particular member.

 

[Linda]

I looked at your link and like I said in the outset of my post, there are definitely some bad projects out there. However, it appears by what they at least listed on the web page, this was before the new transparency rules went into effect. Now, the sponsor is required to attach his or her name onto the spending bills. So, most members will be less likely to face the public scrutiny of requesting those bad projects. Plus, it will make it easier to track down whether or not the projects benefit a particular member.

Agree

 

[Smiling JOe]

beachsi02, earmarks may not account for much of the wasteful spending, but they are part of the problem of overspending. Sure, there is money spent on needed projects, but there is money needed in the bank account of the people who pay Federal taxes. If the Congress would tighten up all the way around, as we people are doing in down times, we could actually cut the deficit. Instead, the Gov't continues to spend more, inflation increases, people are being laid off work, people are not getting salary/wage increases to keep up with inflation. That crap doesn't work well on a graph over time. The gov't needs to figure out what the gov't can afford, and make some sacrifices just like the average tax payer is doing.

 

[BeachSiO2]

beachsi02, earmarks may not account for much of the wasteful spending, but they are part of the problem of overspending. Sure, there is money spent on needed projects, but there is money needed in the bank account of the people who pay Federal taxes. If the Congress would tighten up all the way around, as we people are doing in down times, we could actually cut the deficit. Instead, the Gov't continues to spend more, inflation increases, people are being laid off work, people are not getting salary/wage increases to keep up with inflation. That crap doesn't work well on a graph over time. The gov't needs to figure out what the gov't can afford, and make some sacrifices just like the average tax payer is doing.

I couldn't agree with you more, and Margarita also, about the overall size of the budget. I guess my point was that in the current system, I think we are all being led to believe that if we could solve "the earmark problem" then things would be much better. This is what the media reports since its easy and could be put into a couple of quick sound bites. Well, with the new transparency rules I believe you will see more of the "bad" projects disappear, but I am not confident that the overall budget will reduce and it has to because it is unsustainable. Glad we are all on the same page, I just wanted to flesh out some of the intricacies of the process.