Pelosi: Just Forget the Word "Earmark"

Townhall ^ | June 13, 2007 | Amanda Carpenter

[Syncro]

Pelosi: Just Forget the Word ‘Earmark’
By Amanda Carpenter
Wednesday, June 13, 2007

Send an email to Amanda Carpenter

Email It

Take Action

Read Article & Comments (20) Trackbacks Post Your Comments

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaks during a news conference on Free Trade Agreements on Capitol Hill in Washington May 10, 2007. REUTERS/Molly Riley (UNITED STATES)

Related Media:

VIDEO: Pelosi 'Hoped for More' From Iraq Spending Bill

ON THE BLOG: Related Topics

• Hillary's Earmarks

Related Articles

• House Republicans Declare War on Secret Earmarks & Wasteful Spending

• Taking a Step Backward on Earmarks

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.”

Be the first to read Townhall.com. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

1

2

|

Full Article & Comments

|

Next >

[Syncro]

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.

True, too many of them. Funny that lots of staff have the time to put them into the bill, but not enough time to let us know who put them there.

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.”

Good luck with that Sir. Gee, they can pass a bill with billions of pork in it, and it can't be seen in the bill?

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.”

One word: Liar. Who'd thunk that?

[Old Sarge]

Earmarks. Aren’t those things they clip onto a sow’s ears before they’re harvested?

[goldstategop]

Both parties are corrupt. The country loathes all the politicians and they have record low job approval ratings. No one likes their ugly mugs - every time they appear on TV, they lie even more badly.

"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 Palelologus

[rod1]

Should we forget the word “Corruption” while we are at it?

[VRWCmember]

“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.

Then the fact is there are too many earmarks in the bill, Mr. Obey.

[edcoil]

“She said they should be called “legislative directives””

Legislative directives assumes the legislation has some direction and would cement this type of behavior as acceptable.

Its not, therefore lets try another name: Corrupt Congressional Requirements or CCR’s as you prefer.

[Red Badger]

She said they should be called “legislative directives” instead.

A pig by any other name would stink as bad..........

[Ancient Drive]

earmark 1. give or assign a resource to a particular person or cause; "I will earmark this money for your research"; "She sets aside time for meditation every day" leg·is·la·tive (lěj'ĭ-slā'tĭv) Pronunciation Key adj. 1. Of or relating to the enactment of laws. 2. Resulting from or decided by legislation. 3. Having the power to create laws; intended to legislate. 4. Of or relating to a legislature. di·rec·tive (dĭ-rěk'tĭv, dī-) Pronunciation Key n. An order or instruction, especially one issued by a central authority.

[Tzimisce]

...well she told us she was going to get rid of earmarks - course she meant the word “earmarks” not the actual practices themselves....

[BigFinn]

Just more lawyer speak... just change the words and voila... She is the Queen Bee of corruption.

[Frank Sheed]

These are earmarks...

[Ancient Drive]

so they want earmarks word taken off and still keep the pork?

[hophead]

These people are NOT assholes. They are “evacuation devices”

[goodnesswins]

How about we forget the word SPEAKER and HOUSE, Ms. Pelosi?

[alloysteel]

OK. Not ‘earmark’.

How about, “raid on the Federal Treasury, for no particular purpose other than enrich some donors doing business in my district, who will then make big contributions to my next campaign”.

Why do you think people get themselves elected to Congress, other than to assure an ample supply of Federal largesse to their home district. Well, some of them, anyway.

There really are ethical, focused, dedicated public servants that take their jobs seriously, and occassionallly, they DO get elected to office.

Only to face a trumped-up charge from some crooked district attorney back home who has an agenda.

[Syncro]

She’s in big trouble for blocking B. Hussein Obama like that...

[tcrlaf]

So, Pelosi issues a NewSpeak directive, and Democrat Corruption and campaign promises go right down the Media’s Memory Hole.

How very Orwellian of her....

[tcrlaf]

“Should we forget the word “Corruption” while we are at it?”

Temporarily Advantageous Income Renewal... (TAIR)

[Paine in the Neck]

What other words can we ‘forget’ that will help the Rats ignore real problems?

Iraq
terrorist
illegal aliens

any more?

[jrooney]

I heard here on FR that some felt it would be good if the democrats took over Congress to teach republicans a lesson. Has Reid and Pelosi been good for you? They are emboldening our enemies, putting you and yours in danger and are filling the swamp and not draining it. The yare now bashing our best military leaders. If you thought republicans were out of control on spending, you have not seen anything yet. Thank you Michelle Malkin, Rich Lowry, Michael Savage and anyone that RELENTLESSLY BASHED the republican Congress and GW. Thank you. Tearing down our own because the grass may be greener. This is what we get now. The next two years and maybe longer are going to be a nightmare.