Just received this release via e-mail:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 11, 2008
CONTACT: Ryan Murphy
Wilson Pledges No Earmark Requests
WASHINGTON – Congressman Joe Wilson (SC-02) announced today that he will not seek earmark requests in any Fiscal Year 2009 appropriations bills.
“The American people are fed up with a Washington that fails to respect the taxpayer’s wallet,” said Wilson. “There remains no single set of standards to which all members of Congress abide by when requesting funding for local projects. This has led to a process that is broken and wasteful. Therefore, I see no choice but to enact an immediate one-year moratorium on all earmark requests from my office. I am proud to stand with many of my colleagues in supporting this call for a moratorium and ultimately the establishment of a truly transparent and accountable system that provides a set standard for everyone in Congress to follow, where all earmarks are publicly disclosed to the American people.”
NOTE: Last year, Congressman Wilson publically disclosed all earmark requests made in Fiscal Year 2008 to his constituents. This year, he has cosponsored H.Con.Res. 263, which would create a Joint Select Committee on Earmark Reform, provide a report to Congress on the practices of earmarks, and calls for a moratorium on earmarks until the report is presented to Congress.
###
You may recall (then again, you may not, since it was only watched 161 times) that in 2006, I posted this video of Joe explaining why it’s hard to be "pure" on earmarks, what with the system being the way it is.
Seriously, we all understand that one man’s pork is another’s worthwhile project. But this is no way to set priorities for federal spending.
Anyway, here’s that 2006 video:
Related Posts
>Seriously, we all understand that one
>man’s pork is another’s worthwhile
>project. But this is no way to set
>priorities for federal spending.
How would you handle it?
More disclosure?
Line item veto for the President?
No earmark amendments on unrelated bills (who decides)?
How do you stop the use of public funds by politicians to feather their own nests?
An interesting tidbit from the recent documentary “Why We Fight” was that B1 bomber has at least one part manufactured in every state. Why? It protects the votes for the funding to continue.
I like the line-item veto — but you know me, executive power guy that I am.
Actually, that was the subject of probably the longest sustained conversation I ever had with Al Gore. It was over dinner, in 1984, with my publisher and his wife (who was also our business writer at that paper) in Jackson, TN. I was advocating the veto and, while not exactly opposing me on it, Al kept bringing up the problem of the executive so clearly overriding a prerogative of the legislature (which is what the Supremes decided on the 90s version that Al’s future buddy Bill Clinton briefly enjoyed). I suggested a simple-majority override — no supermajority required. That way, if the Congress really wanted a thing, it could vote for it straight up — but it would have to vote for it, openly and specifically. I still think that sounds good.
Bush tried to institute a form of the veto that would work that way, but involve such words as “rescission,” which looks like it’s misspelled. Haven’t heard much about it lately.
Unfortunately, even the line item veto would inspire new “creativity” among politicians.
“Hey, I’ll let that one slide, Congressman, if I can count on you to vote my way on my Supreme Court nominee”
As long as there is money and power involved, the lowest common denominator in human behavior will appear. That is a trait shared by both the public and private sector.
I remember oh so well the days of Strom Thurmond. Everybody adored him for bringing in all kinds of goodies for South Carolina. Now all of a sudden GOP politicians are falling all over themselves to oppose earmarks. I guess that’s a good thing but frankly it won’t make a dent in the federal budget. I would prefer a politician who wants to save $12 billion a month by getting us out of that damn occupation disaster in Iraq.
Anyone care to speculate on Strom’s net worth when he died? His estate was conveniently set up to hide all his assets in trusts so his total estate was listed somewhere around $100K.
It looks like Speaker Pelosi is getting religion:
This is good news, a bipartisan effort to curtail the porkfest, led by a speaker known for her support of specific corporate interests.
For a counterintuitive look at the impact of pork, take a gander at Byrne Grants and how even law enforcement plays politics to get the loot.
Here’s an update on the biggest pork project of them all. From the AP:
BAGHDAD – Violence appeared to be on the rise in Iraq after a day that saw at least 42 people die — numbers that cast doubt on the easing of sectarian violence following a surge of U.S. forces to the country last year.
Joe Wilson’s favorite pet project–the Bush/Cheney War in Iraq–is the biggest boondoggle in American history.
Wilson openly brags about rebuilding Iraqi schools, hospitals, roads, bridges, and other infrastructure (which Wilson fully supported destroying).
Wilson has no problem spending our tax dollars in Iraq into infinity but doesn’t want our tax dollars spent here at all. He’s un-American and unpatriotic.
EARMARKS MUST BE ELIMINATED!
The term “Earmark” is most comonly used to refer to a provision (line-item) in legislation that directs funds to be spent on specific projects. Members of Congress insert earmarks into bills in order to direct specified amounts of money be given or spent on particular organizations or projects in their home states or districts. This differs from the appropriation of budget money to a particular government agency where the agency head can exercise discretion as to where and how the funds are spent. If the funds aren’t earmarked by members of congress, the agencies are free to spend money on projects they believe are most appropriate to meet their organizational goals and objectives.
Earmarks can more accurately be described as giving away the taxpayers hard earned money by secretly attaching line-items into non-related congressional bills for specific projects or specific recipients in order to get re-elected.
Many of the beneficiaries of these earmarked funds are state or local public agencies, but just as often, the money goes to private entities where the beneficiaries are political supporters of the legislators pushing the earmarks. Earmarks are the principal means by which Members of Congress “bring home the pork” and publishing their earmarks during an election year is a common tactic used to help incumbent members of congress get reelected.
It is not so much that any single earmark is the problem, but rather it’s the entire process. There is no real transparency or accountability in the current system. Members of congress try to re-direct billions of dollars of funding to specific projects within their district without subjecting these projects to debate by their colleagues, or to scrutiny and oversight by the public. The earmarking process invites backroom deals and sometimes unethical, or even corrupt behavior. It has become part of a “pay-to-play” culture where lobbyists, contractors and well-connected individuals give campaign contributions to legislators in return for receiving federal funding via earmarks for their special projects.
While the vital interests of the nation are being ignored by members of both houses of congress regardless of party affiliation, many legislators concentrate their efforts on diverting appropriated agency money to low-priority and sometimes outrageous special interest projects that will generate local publicity and additional campaign contributions.
While the country suffers from an invasion of illegal aliens and cannot seem to find the funds for increased border security, congress earmarks $3.4 million to research the Formosan Subterranean Termite and $10 million to La Raza, a pro-illegal alien amnesty organization. While the country goes deeper and deeper into debt and the dollar seems to lose its value every day, congress earmarks $450,000 for the International Peace Garden in Dunseith, North Dakota and $13.5 million for the International Fund for Ireland, which includes funding for the World Toilet Summit. While the nation’s education system is failing the American people, congress earmarks $2 million for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at the City College of New York and another $200,000 for the Andre Agassi College Preparatory Academy in Las Vegas, Nev.
The House of Representatives has recently taken an important first step in reducing earmarks by passing House Rules changes requiring that earmarked spending projects and their congressional sponsors be publicized on the internet at least 48 hours before they are considered for a vote on the floor. Under the new rules, Members of Congress will be required to justify the public need for the specific earmarked expenditures and certify that they won’t benefit financially from them. This is a good step forward, but more must be done.
The best way to reduce the number of earmarks is to pass legislation that requires that all bills and legislation be single issue or purposed. An individual bill should address one specific issue and only that issue. Any amendments must directly address that specific issue. No pork, no side issues, and especially no riders. All bills must be published and the discussions open to public scrutiny.
Limiting legislation to a single purpose will make bills more concise, and will substantially reduce the number of expensive special interest giveaways that are routinely inserted into so called “must pass” legislation without any debate. If members of congress want to fund specific projects back in their home states, let them introduce bills for these projects and let these bills be openly debated and voted on.
By:
JOHN W. WALLACE
Candidate for Congress
New York’s 20th Congressional District
http://www.FreedomCandidate.com