Quote Originally Posted by 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:
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 (??NDIC?) and have the Department of Justice??s Inspector General audit the effectiveness of the center, located in Rep. Murtha??s district, Rep. Murtha approached Rep. Rogers on the House floor and stated, ??I hope you don??t have any earmarks in the defense appropriations bills because they are gone, and you will not get any earmarks now and forever.?57 Rep. Rogers replied, ??This is not the way we do things here,? and, ??is that supposed to make me afraid of you?? Rep. Murtha retorted, ??That??s the way I do it.?58 Although Rep. Rogers declined to file a formal ethics complaint, he described Rep. Murtha??s actions as ??cajoling, bullying, threatening intimidation and they crossed a line.?59 On May 22, 2007, a resolution aimed at reprimanding Rep. Murtha for threatening Rep. Rogers?? 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 ??outburst.?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. Rogers?? 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. Tiahrt??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, ??It was a little misunderstanding,? 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. Rogers?? 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. Murtha??s threat to block any congressional earmarks requested by Rep. Rogers in retaliation for Rep. Rogers?? efforts to strip Rep. Murtha??s earmark out of legislation and his threat to withdraw his support for a project in Rep. Tiahart??s district in retaliation for Rep. Tiahrt??s committee vote to kill the NDIC violate Rule XXIII, clause 16 and do not reflect creditably on the House.
thcbongman Reviewed by thcbongman on . Congress and Earmarks..... 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: Rating: 5