|
|
|
|
|||||||
| Current Events A place for serious discussion of news and events from the world around us. |
 |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
dirty tricks
Meet the new boss....
Democrats hide pet projects from voters By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer 2 hours, 17 minutes ago After promising unprecedented openness regarding Congress' pork barrel practices, House Democrats are moving in the opposite direction as they draw up spending bills for the upcoming budget year. Democrats are sidestepping rules approved their first day in power in January to clearly identify "earmarks" — lawmakers' requests for specific projects and contracts for their states. Rather than including specific pet projects, grants and contracts in legislation as it is being written, Democrats are following an order by the House Appropriations Committee chairman to keep the bills free of such earmarks until it is too late for critics to effectively challenge them. Rep. David Obey (news, bio, voting record), D-Wis., says those requests for dams, community grants and research contracts for favored universities or hospitals will be added to spending measures in the fall. That is when House and Senate negotiators assemble final bills. Such requests total billions of dollars. As a result, most lawmakers will not get a chance to oppose specific projects as wasteful or questionable when the spending bills for various agencies get their first votes in the full House in June. The House-Senate compromise bills due for final action in September cannot be amended and are subject to only one hour of debate, precluding challenges to individual projects. Obey insists he is reluctantly taking the step because Appropriations Committee members and staff have not had enough time to fully review the 36,000 earmark requests that have flooded the committee. What Obey is doing runs counter to new rules that Democrats promised would make such spending decisions more open.
__________________
  
|
|
#2
03 Jun 2007, 02:52 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
36,000 is a lot to be sure but i'd be willing to bet with the staffs these guys employ 3 months is likely sufficient enough time to review, summarize, and disseminate the information to everyone.
i'm surprised they don't follow some sort of rating system like that used by the NSF for the hundreds of thousands of proposals they receive each year. but then as that would require work and result in some sort of accountability i guess it shouldn't be all that surprising.
__________________
True patriotism hates injustice in its own land more than anywhere else. - Clarence Darrow Widespread intellectual and moral docility may be convenient for leaders in the short term, but it is suicidal for nations in the long term. One of the criteria for national leadership should therefore be a talent for understanding, encouraging, and making constructive use of vigorous criticism. - Carl Sagan
|
Linear Mode
