Posted on 12/16/2006 11:30:19 AM PST by jazusamo
Last week, I was sorely disappointed that the House of Representatives failed to pass the most commonsense of bills – the Defense Spending Report Card Act. If there was ever an example of what is wrong with Washington it would be the lopsided vote of 70-330 by which this bill failed.
The Defense Spending Report Card simply would have required an accounting of Defense Department money spent on Congressional earmarks. The Department of Defense would have had to report the total annual cost of these initiatives, the purpose of each, and an analysis of how each initiative would advance the goals of the Department of Defense. Each Defense earmark would have had to withstand the spotlight long enough to justify its expense.
No one begrudges a single dollar spent to keep our troops well equipped and well trained, especially during a time of war when our highest priority is to help them complete their mission so they can return home safely and soon. But, good will towards the troops should not be an excuse for Congress or the Pentagon to turn the defense spending bills into an endless goody bag of pet projects.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
Ping - Murtha managed to be present to vote against this bill last week.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
Sadly, what you say is too true.
The 'earmarks' I generally oppose but I think we have quite enough reports generated in our nation's capital already.
And I should vote for republicans because.......
This is a report we need. Earmarks often divert money from our troops and to projects that the Pentagon doesn't need or want. There is currently no review of the earmarks and little transparency. Guys like Murtha and Moran can add millions in earmarks to appropriations bills--and wait for kickbacks in "campaign" contributions from the recepients.
I believe this would have helped limit earmarks that are inserted by Congresscritters that go to the local defense contractors for projects that DOD don't want, JMO.
Yes, but Congresscritters do not have to document or even explain their earmarks.
This bill was aimed at bringing greater tranparency to Congressional earmarks--not to Defense Dept. requests or legitimate defense appropriations.
I'm not going to dispute what you say because I don't have sources to back it up, do you have sources to back up what you say?
Pelosi, Levin, Murtha, Moran, Rangel, Byrd, Kennedy, Kerry...The anti-war crowd is now in charge of every Congressional committee. There's talk of at least two hearings a day come January.
See how you feel in 08.
Because Repubs support our military and the looney left wing liberal moonbat Dems don't and they haven't for 40 years.
No, there isn't. Earmarks can only be discovered through rigorous research.
There was a good article recently in Bloomberg Alcoa, Timken Gain as Funds Go to `Boondoggle' Plans
Here's a quote from the article:
Overlooking Arnold Palmer Regional Airport in western Pennsylvania sits a research center that has received $12 million from the Defense Department since 2003 to help companies such as Alcoa Inc. and Timken Co. improve production methods.
The man behind the center is Congressman John Murtha, a local Democrat who founded and allocated the money for it. Trouble is, the Defense Department never asked for it.
The U.S. military's budget is increasingly being diverted to fund the pet projects of lawmakers, often for purposes that stretch the meaning of national defense. The funds are sometimes taken from training and spare parts -- a ``dangerous'' practice at a time when the Army is spread thin in Iraq and facing threats in Iran and North Korea, says John Shalikashvili, a retired general and former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
If you had a need to know, you wouldn't have to ask the question.
I respect your opinion, Red, and even agree with it to a certain extent, but what will stop guys like Murtha and Moran from hiring their buddies to both write and read these reports in exchange for more 'political contributions'? You can't expect to gain anything by paying a fox to guard the chicken coop.
I'll take that as a no.
That wasn't what this bill would have done. It would have revealed, at last, exactly what the foxes are up to.
There was an excellent editorial in the Washington DC Examiner: Why Did Congress Kill DOD Earmarks Report Card?
Here's a bit of the article:
Twice this year...the Senate adopted an amendment sponsored by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., to require a DOD spending bill report card making public details of all earmarks and the names of their sponsors. In addition, the Coburn provision required the Pentagon to assign a letter grade ranging from A to F for each earmark, with an F indicating the earmark was of little or no value to the nation’s defense.
snip
Total up the Pentagon earmarks for the past three years and it comes to $27 billion. That’s nearly half the emergency supplemental spending approved earlier this year to help pay for Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. It is outrageous that any congressman would think that, instead of spending those tax dollars to support our brave men and women in the battlefield, it’s better to spend it on things like $5 million for mood disorder studies, $10 million to expand Stillwater, Pa.’s waste water treatment facilities or $500,000 to support the Arctic Winter Games in Alaska, just to name a few recent examples.
Judging from the comments on this thread, it's easy to see why Congress knows real reform can be squashed--and voters won't even notice.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.