Posted on 06/13/2007 4:59:31 PM PDT by DCJeanGrey
The more than 32,000 earmarks requested in the Homeland Security spending bill have roiled the House this week, and now Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) wants the word ‘earmark’ to just go away.
In a Tuesday press conference about appropriation bills, Pelosi said, “Why don’t we leave here today forgetting the word earmark?” She said they should be called “legislative directives” instead.
Five months ago, Pelosi’s House passed a resolution to require that these “legislative directives” be listed within the texts of applicable legislation next to the names of members who requested them, and therefore available to the public. It was a part of the Democrats’ bevy of midterm campaign promises that vowed to “drain the swamp” of the “culture of corruption” on Capitol Hill and create “the most ethical Congress in history.”
House Appropriations Chairman Rep. David Obey (D.-Wisc.)said his staff was unable to print the earmarks into this year’s round of spending bills, however, because there were too many and it would take up too much of his staff’s time.
Subsequently, because the earmarks are not printed in the bill, members cannot challenge the earmarks before voting on the legislation.This prompted Republican Minority Leader John Boehner (Ohio), as he said Tuesday, to “declare war on our Democratic majority over these secret slush funds.”
Obey appeared at the Tuesday press conference with Pelosi and other Democratic leaders to talk about the spending bills being considered in the House.
There, I asked him if he was opposed to letting members contesting earmarks on the House floor.
He said “no” and that this would be the only year members would not be able to contest earmarks. He said his staff had been uncommonly burdened with the unfinished spending bills not passed by the previous Congress, the Iraq spending supplemental and investigations for “Republican shenanigans that occurred in the last Congress.”
“The fact is if we wanted to list those earmarks, it would take at least four weeks to get the job done, four weeks of staff work to put it together,” he said.
Obey denied implications that a larger staff would alleviate this problem.
“We don’t need more staff, we need more time,” Obey said.“We had unusual circumstances this time. For next year’s round I would fully expect to try to include them in the bill.”
It was at this point that Speaker Pelosi took back the podium and suggested that reporters forget the word “earmark.”
“This is legislative spending as opposed to executive spending,” she said. “And in the absence of legislative directives, you have appropriations bills that are totally dictated by the White House.”
She said “legislative directives” were a way for “members to come together, sometimes in a bipartisan way, to have the Congress of the United States determine what is in the appropriations instead of just leaving it up to the White House.”
Later, a senior Republican aide coyly said, “Maybe taxes can be re-termed ‘suggested government donations to avoid jail time’ or ‘mandated contributions for the common good.”
The White House threatened Wednesday to veto the $37.4billion Homeland Security funding bill because it contains a six percent spending increase and a mandate to ensure that those who work on federal projects receive a “prevailing wage.” The six percent increase will cost taxpayers $2.1 billion more than the President requested.
House Republicans are working in full force to combat the extra spending. Ranking Member of the House Rules Committee Rep. David Dreier (R.-Calif.) said Obey had become a “rallying point” for the GOP to unite against, while speaking to reporters before meeting with other Rules committee members to negotiate how to proceed on these bills.
Drier also said he has been approached by Democrats who believe Obey has stepped too far. “I think we are going to see concern from Democrats who regret what David Obey has done,” he said.
To stall debate on the bill, Republicans have introduced more than 100 “funding-limitation amendments” designed to prohibit spending on questionable items. For example, Republican Study Committee Chairman Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R.-Tex.) has introduced 73 amendments to block money from funding from things like yoga classes and puppet shows, as well as one to eliminate$300 million in state grants.
In a document circulated amongst reporters Wednesday,Boehner dismissed Obey’s claims that his staff did not have enough time to review the earmarks: “We’ve had plenty of time to look at these earmarks even if the new majority is looking to place blame elsewhere for their shortcomings. If my Democratic friends had spent less time trying to choke off funding for our troops in harm’s way, we could have gotten to these spending bills much sooner. Either way, there is no excuse for trying to shove slush funds for secret earmarks down our throats. Republicans won’t stand for it.”
Queen Hill seems to also be the “Queen of earmarks” - to the tune of > $150 million
Another word I’d like to see banned is aardvark.
Maybe we can call them Undocumented Spending.
Yup! That’s a liberal for you. If you call a midget “vertically challenged” you’ve solved the problem without having to get into all that nasty science and math stuff.
GrannyNanny has just dropped Congress' poll ratings another two or three points with this nonsense. She's well up in the running for the world's stupidest woman, despite heavy competition from many others in CA, including Boxer, Waters, and Lee.
This is like Jerry Brown calling laws “concepts”.
Bovine excrement.
I wish I could believe it, but I can't.
This woman truly is an airhead.
That’s it! That’s it! Semantics are our problem. Why, we’ll just banish that inconvenient word, earmark: Out. Out. Out, damned spot. It worked so well with abortion, murder some called it, but we decided it would be a choice. Much nicer word, don’t you agree? Not the least bit messy, who could argue with a choice.
And so, a word to the New York Times: Make it so,and we will all be happy everafter.
“legislative directives”
Amazing.
Elitist hack..
She said “legislative directives” were a way for “members to come together, sometimes in a bipartisan way, to have the Congress of the United States determine what is in the appropriations instead of just leaving it up to the White House.”
No, no, no! Congress can determine what is spent. But the corruption of the spending-formerly-known-as-earmarks is that Congress determines where it is spent. If we need a new infectious disease research center, it shouldn't matter to Congress where it is. The problem is when Byrd decides that the fate of the nation depends on it being in West Virginia.
This is something the Republicans should fight on. It resonates with the public. It makes the Dems look both foolish and crooked simultaneously. And if they can be stopped for a year it could actually save some money thus pushing the "spending like drunken sailors" back to the Dems.
I have zero confidence on the Republicans finding either their spines or their balls and doing anything.
In a Tuesday press conference about appropriation bills, Pelosi said, “Why don’t we leave here today forgetting the word earmark?” She said they should be called “legislative directives” instead.She said this not behind closed doors. Nor did she say it with irony. She said it openly, and at a press conference! Obviously she believes--and on rational grounds--that the press are her allies if she so openly coaches them on their use of language.
Yep, that’ll fix it.
Just think how silly the Republican Congress was to take the blame for not actually solving problems. The solution to all these problems was staring them in the face all along — just rename them and they no longer exist.
Pelosi is the Queen of Denial ... and it has nothing to do with Egypt.
And Wise is “too busy” to include them in the bill so they can be debated ? How is that even legal ??
I think they should be called “porkers”.
Sorry. “Wise” should be “Obey from Wisc.”
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.