Congress and Earmarks.....

[Psycho4Bud]

Pick the assclown of your choice and HOPEFULLY together we can cover ALL of the waste!:mad:

Lets start off with good ol' Congressman MURTHA.......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcSYOo7HXy0&feature=related

Have a good one!:s4:

[foxfire342]

That's a good democrat for you.

[rebgirl420]

Ahhhhh Murtha!

I live in Pennsylvania and he is everywhere! I can't stand him. He's the worst of them all.

159.1 Million in earmarks and private bullshit. WITH TAX PAYER MONEY!

I wish it was 1776 so we could tar and feather this jerk.

[Psycho4Bud]

Senator Barack Obama on Thursday released a list of $740 million in earmarked spending requests that he had made over the last three years, and his campaign challenged Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to do the same.

The list included $1 million for a hospital where Mr. Obamaâ??s wife works, money for several projects linked to campaign donors and support for more than 200 towns, civic institutions and universities in Illinois.

But as the Senate debated a bill to restrict the controversial method of paying for home-state projects â?? a measure defeated Thursday evening â?? Mr. Obamaâ??s presidential campaign also said that only about $220 million worth of his requests had been approved by Congress. And among those that had been killed were his request in 2006 for $1 million for an expansion of the University of Chicago Medical Center, where Mr. Obamaâ??s wife, Michelle, is a vice president.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/14/us/politics/14campaign.html?n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Organizations/U/University%20of%20Chicago

My daily nomination for, "Assclown for Earmarks". :thumbsup:

Have a good one!:s4:

[thcbongman]

There's no doubt Obama is guilty of requesting wasteful pork notably requesting $5.9M for the Field museum in Chicago while they had a $30M surplus. However that was rejected. Overall last year, 91M of his earmarks was approved, which puts him in the least-spending quarter percentile of senators

However to say McCain never requested pork is incorrect. An example in 2006, He proposed legislation to give University of Arizona $10 million to create a center to honor Chief Justice William Reinquist. While it's not an earmark and was separate piece of legislation that eventually died, his doesn't meet his own strict stance on saying he never requested pork or an earmark.

McCain also has people on his campaign staff and lobbyists hosting fundraisers who aided in securing earmarks. McCain can say whatever he wants, but if his staff is filled with people who are apart of the earmark culture, nothing will change.

This isn't to say Obama is right because he isn't, . At least McCain is known for his battles with the appropriation committee on wasteful earmarks. He also didn't request any.

However it seems there's blind bias that earmarks is solely requested by democrats. It's a bipartisan issue. Take a look:

Top 10 earmarks recipients in the house:

Top Ten House Earmark Recipients
Member
Party
State
Solo Earmarks
Solo and With Other Lawmakers

Wicker
R
MS
$6,992,000
$177,988,500

Murtha
D
PA
$159,973,200
$176,397,200

Young, C.W. Bill
R
FL
$103,863,000
$169,073,000

Hoyer
D
MD
$13,777,259
$139,128,759

Lewis, Jerry
R
CA
$110,019,000
$137,475,000

Edwards
D
TX
$42,356,000
$128,917,980

Berry
D
AR
$7,251,000
$123,890,600

Visclosky
D
IN
$69,962,200
$113,653,000

Skelton
D
MO
$44,000,000
$111,864,000

Dicks
D
WA
$53,111,000
$106,006,550

Top 10 senate recipients of earmarks:

Top Ten House Earmark Recipients
Member
Party
State
Solo Earmarks
Solo and With Other Lawmakers

Wicker
R
MS
$6,992,000
$177,988,500

Murtha
D
PA
$159,973,200
$176,397,200

Young, C.W. Bill
R
FL
$103,863,000
$169,073,000

Hoyer
D
MD
$13,777,259
$139,128,759

Lewis, Jerry
R
CA
$110,019,000
$137,475,000

Edwards
D
TX
$42,356,000
$128,917,980

Berry
D
AR
$7,251,000
$123,890,600

Visclosky
D
IN
$69,962,200
$113,653,000

Skelton
D
MO
$44,000,000
$111,864,000

Dicks
D
WA
$53,111,000
$106,006,550

[rebgirl420]

^ 14 out of the 20 senators you mentioned were Democrats.

Good stuff :)

[thcbongman]

Top 10 representatives and Top 10 Senators.

If you truncate the bottom 5 on each list, you'd have 3 of 5 republican representatives in the top 5 and 4 of 5 of republican senators as top earmark requestors. Not exactly good :P

It's not a good thing for either party. It's a testimony of the abuse of earmarks by both parties.

[thcbongman]

Oh crap, I realized I copied the same list twice, my bad :o

Member
Party
State
Solo Earmarks
Solo and With Other Lawmakers

Cochran
R
MS
$289,793,000
$837,256,500

Landrieu
D
LA
$103,303,050
$469,691,110

Stevens
R
AK
$389,043,750
$456,902,750

Bond
R
MO
$128,227,400
$454,632,500

Shelby
R
AL
$191,099,800
$426,492,200

Inouye
D
HI
$229,775,440
$414,327,330

Byrd
D
WV
$333,024,438
$407,360,438

Murray
D
WA
$141,007,117
$376,489,467

Clinton
D
NY
$98,000
$342,403,455

Durbin
D
IL
$39,313,300
$335,181,200

[Psycho4Bud]

Nice to see that list but why not centralize on a person/project of waste one at a time....really get to the b.s. by BOTH parties under the numbers.

Have a good one!:s4:

[Psycho4Bud]

Assclown of the day.........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UdYDgr8XUA

Have a good one!:s4:

[Psycho4Bud]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McEz2l1EvDs

I like this Jeff Flake....seems he likes to challenge the system. As for Pelosi...NOT a suprise!

Have a good one!:s4:

[Psycho4Bud]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBkkaAoZj8o

Can it be true...two congressmen that have their head screwed on straight?

Have a good one!:s4:

[Psycho4Bud]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MewEpStqQg&feature=related

And here is your assclown of the day.....Congressman Rangel.

Have a good one!:s4:

[thcbongman]

Nice to see that list but why not centralize on a person/project of waste one at a time....really get to the b.s. by BOTH parties under the numbers.

Have a good one!:s4:

All right! Here's one you'll appreciate! Interesting insight into the political process.



John Murtha - $23B earmark to National Drug Intelligence Center, summary on Mike Rogers attempt to strip the earmark

After Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) offered a procedural motion on May 10, 2007, that would have stripped a $23 million earmark from the intelligence authorization bill designated for the National Drug Intelligence Center (â??NDICâ?�) and have the Department of Justiceâ??s Inspector General audit the effectiveness of the center, located in Rep. Murthaâ??s district, Rep. Murtha approached Rep. Rogers on the House floor and stated, â??I hope you donâ??t have any earmarks in the defense appropriations bills because they are gone, and you will not get any earmarks now and forever.â?�57 Rep. Rogers replied, â??This is not the way we do things here,â?� and, â??is that supposed to make me afraid of you?â?� Rep. Murtha retorted, â??Thatâ??s the way I do it.â?�58 Although Rep. Rogers declined to file a formal ethics complaint, he described Rep. Murthaâ??s actions as â??cajoling, bullying, threatening intimidation and they crossed a line.â?�59 On May 22, 2007, a resolution aimed at reprimanding Rep. Murtha for threatening Rep. Rogersâ?? earmark was permanently tabled on a 219-189 vote. 60 Rep. Michael Doyle (D-PA) was the only member of the House ethics committee to vote to table the resolution.61 The other members of the committee voted present, except for Chair Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-OH) who did not vote.62 Finally, on May 23, 2007, Rep. Murtha apologized to Rep. Rogers for his â??outburst.â?�63 Earlier in May, Rep. Murtha had threatened Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-KS), the only Republican member to sit on both the House Intelligence Committee and the Defense Appropriations Committee, for voting in favor of Rep. Rogersâ?? amendment to kill the NDIC in the intelligence committee mark-up.64 Rep. Murtha approached Rep. Tiahrt on the House floor and unleashed a finger-pointing tirade at the other lawmaker, during which he [Rep. Murtha] threatened to withdraw his support from a defense project associated with the Boeing company in Rep. Tiahrtâ??s district.65 When confronted, Rep. Tiahrt explained that he had not known the earmark had been inserted by Rep. Murtha. Asked about the issue later, Rep. Tiahrt claimed, â??It was a little misunderstanding,â?� and refused to discuss the matter.66 After his conversation with
Rep. Murtha, Rep. Tiahrt apparently changed his position regarding the NDIC earmark; despite having voted for Rep. Rogersâ?? amendment in committee, he voted against it on the House floor.67

House Rule XXIII, Clause 16 provides:
A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may not condition the inclusion of language to provide funding for a congressional earmark, a limited tax benefit, a limited tariff benefit in any bill or joint resolution (or an accompanying report) or in any conference report on a bill or joint resolution (including an accompanying joint explanatory statement of managers) on any vote cast by
another Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner. For purposes of this clause and clause 17, the terms ''congressional earmark,'' ''limited tax benefit,'' and ''limited tariff benefit'' shall have the meanings given them in clause 9 of rule

XXI.
Rule XXI, clause 9(d) provides:
For the purpose of this clause, the term ''congressional earmark'' means a provision or report language included primarily at the request of a Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, or Senator providing, authorizing or recommending a specific amount of discretionary budget authority, credit authority, or other spending authority for a contract, loan, loan guarantee, grant, loan authority, or other expenditure with or to an entity, or targeted to a specific State, locality or Congressional district, other than through a statutory or administrative formula driven or competitive award process.

Rep. Murthaâ??s threat to block any congressional earmarks requested by Rep. Rogers in retaliation for Rep. Rogersâ?? efforts to strip Rep. Murthaâ??s earmark out of legislation and his threat to withdraw his support for a project in Rep. Tiahartâ??s district in retaliation for Rep. Tiahrtâ??s committee vote to kill the NDIC violate Rule XXIII, clause 16 and do not reflect creditably on the House.