|
Post by damnyankee on Jun 26, 2007 9:59:28 GMT -5
Lincoln Davis laid all his on the table. Zack Wamp says he will not. What's up with that?
|
|
|
Post by traveler on Jun 27, 2007 6:59:28 GMT -5
I believe all earmarks should be posted on the web. Full disclosure.
|
|
|
Post by bernardjenkins on Jun 27, 2007 7:26:12 GMT -5
I understand that Mrs. Clinton is the queen of earmarks!
|
|
|
Post by legaltender on Jun 27, 2007 8:11:12 GMT -5
I believe all earmarks should be posted on the web. Full disclosure.
As Barack Obama does? He gets no props for that or for returning lobbyist campaign cash.
The Senate will never allow earmarks to go through the normal budget process, be debated in public, and voted on. A political system awash in cash can't possibly serve everyday American citizens.
|
|
|
Post by traveler on Jun 27, 2007 13:41:16 GMT -5
Yes, but for entirely different reasons. Obama is running for President so the more pork he can spread around, the more votes he can potentially influence. Furthermore, his state receives a lot of federal dollars relative to most states. Pork barrel spending is part of his philosophical belief system. He is proud of his pork. So, of course, he wants to advertise.
This philosophy is in one hundred percent alignment with the cradle to grave, government is here to help you, mentality/philosophy.
Others, however, are no so pervasive nor so proud of these earmarks and do not want attention drawn to them unnecessarily.
Personally, I believe all should be advertised for all to see so that real comparisons can be drawn and true philosophies highlighted.
|
|
|
Post by legaltender on Jun 27, 2007 15:43:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by traveler on Jun 27, 2007 16:47:59 GMT -5
I did not say it is a sham. I simply said it fits his political philosophy of big government and handing out money.
Quick but true story: I was in Obama's office, probably six months ago, with a friend from Chicago who needed to speak to one of his staffers about a technology project. He was not looking nor asking for any type of funding. He was simply providing the Senator's office with some interesting information about the project which had been partially funded through a federal grant from the Dept of Justice.
We had not been in conversation more than five minutes when the staffer volunteered the Senator to go after earmark funding to expand the project. Literally, we were there five minutes and he was begging to give us money, as much as $500,000 without blinking an eyelid.
The staffer was a very nice guy and he thought he was doing us a favor. Furthermore, this was his mindset....handing out money to potential voters/constituents. He saw this as his job and he wanted to do it well.
This is what I am talking about. It is a major philosophical difference between liberals and conservatives when it comes to spending tax dollars. Conservatives have to at least be convinced. Liberals just open up the cookie jar and start throwing money out.
|
|
|
Post by legaltender on Jun 27, 2007 17:22:41 GMT -5
You pitched website disclosure. He does that.
What technology project sent two people to Hill offices with no federal funds in play?
|
|
|
Post by traveler on Jun 27, 2007 17:37:42 GMT -5
I am glad Obama is listing his earmarks and I do wish that all would do that. I am simply pointing out that he is motivated to do so because it fits his political philosophy. I don't care that is the reason. I understand it. I also do not agree with it.
On the other question, it is common practice and a common courtesy to visit legislators when in town on business associated with federal projects.
Not everyone goes to the Hill with a hand out begging for money, as difficult as that may be to believe.
|
|
|
Post by legaltender on Jun 27, 2007 17:44:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by legaltender on Jun 27, 2007 17:58:57 GMT -5
Obama is motivated by votes just as everyone. You and he apparently believe some level of sunlight taps the brake on earmarks. Makes three of us.
|
|
|
Post by traveler on Jun 27, 2007 18:09:34 GMT -5
I have a different view on earmarks than many in that I am not philosophically opposed to them conceptually. This also gets me in trouble with some of my political friends. But I am a firm believer in transparency in the process....if an earmark is worth funding, it should be worth defending, in my opinion. It should also fit within the spirit of any authorization bills as passed by Congress which is very often not the case.
|
|