I did not spin anything, nor talk about Obama, I think he is a gifted orator, and has a fantastic vision and committed to his cause…ACORN is being investigated by the FBI (as a seperate issue, and has received federal tax monies through grants…and you have challenged me to find the ones added on as earmarks…I am staying focused on earmarks and PORK)
To qualify as PORK, by CAGW’s definition, 2 of the seven must be met:
Requested by only one chamber of Congress;
Not specifically authorized;
Not competitively awarded;
Not requested by the President;
Greatly exceeds the President’s budget request or the previous year’s funding;
Not the subject of congressional hearings; or
Serves only a local or special interest.
I would argue that most of the ACORN funding does meet at least 2 of the seven criteria, but I will investigate further, and get back to you.
I also think funding for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is Pork, as well as so many thousand more listed on the site: www.cagw.org
It is not a partisan site, it clearly lists the Republican offenders right alongside the Democrats…being stupid with taxpayer money is not the sole property of either party, apparently.
In searching the CAGW database for every year available I was only able to find the one in 2005 for $140,000 for New York Teen Pregnancy Education that you already found and listed. That’s a far cry from $31 million.
I think you are possibly confused about what Earmarks are and just the general things that you don’t think the government should spend money on.
You posed the topic as a question, but never attempted to give any meaningful answer.
By bringing up ACORN you diverted the topic from actually talking about ear marks to trying to criticize Obama.
Maybe you are confused, and did not read the 2 posts at the beginning of this thread…
I defined earmarks…and also quoted, and in BOLD type, how not only ACORN, but AARP and any group that has lobbyists should not be able to get grants…even those hidden as block grants lumped in earmarks in the federal budget that are not voted on, discussed, or even made public…
ACORN is an example…of how an organization with a stated noble cause can go bad…
Nowhere did I talk about Obama…please point out where I have spoken poorly about Obama in this thread, or even insinuated that he is, in any way, connected to ACORN or even the AARP.
You’ve failed to show that the grant money received by ACORN was through Earmarks (As you defined them to mean monies attached to unrelated bills) and not through programs that congress knowingly approved of.
If you don’t mean to attack Obama why would you choose ACORN as your example of Earmarks especially when you have yet to show what unrelated bills ACORN grants were attached to?
OK…listen dunder head (my 5 year old son laughs hysterically at that phrase…I doubt you will)…read a couple of my posts, would you?
I said I would research it and get back to you as soon as I can find the info…is your latte burnin yer melon, dude? I will try and find that information, as soon as I have the chance…can you acknowledge that I accept your challenge, and if I am wrong I will hang my head in shame…or at least cop to being wrong, which is the RIGHT thing to do…when you are wrong…incorrect, or otherwise looking and sounding like an idiot, or moron…
How about my reference to AARP…you have completely avoided that reference from my original post?
I don’t think FED tax $$$$ should go to ACORN, AARP, Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, or Scripps research or the Monterrey Aquarium or studying tetse flies and their habitat, either…
You are the one hung up on the whole Obama thing…I am not talking about a Presidential election, OK…got it; comprende, amigo?
This is about Earmarks, and that they should not be allowed any longer…we need reform…Congress doesn’t need to spend hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars on special interests of States, or lobbyists…the public can donate to causes they feel deserving…don’t take the money from my paycheck to pay for stuff that should be funded by the local populace.
Because tiny states have 2 senators each. So the guys from Montana or Alaska say, "hey, I just voted to blow 5 billion to make bridges in California, how about giving me 100 million to build a bridge ? "
Small states have the extreme advantage of representation in the Senate. Montana, Alaska, RI, these states combined have 6 votes in the Senate, and can totally screw the senators from New York or California, even if there aren’t many people in these states, and they pay relatively little into the treasury.
Mc Cain likes to harp on the issue, but really a Prez can’t fix the ear mark system. That would require a constitutional amendment to make senate representation proportional to population.
Ear marks are extremely popular in small states. The voters love the extra money and jobs they bring. Ted Stevens, of "bridge to nowhere " fame, has been in the Senate for 40 years. He is likely to be re elected despite being on trial for corruption about getting free renovations on his house.
Remember, no bills pass without going through the senate. Ear marks are a way of trading votes, you vote for me, I vote for you. I admit that many are stupid or wasteful, however, these earmarks serve a valuable function. They are a type of oil that lubricates the machinery of political compromise.
You will never get the small states to go along with the elimination of the ear mark system. Senators in small states are prized for seniority, and the plum committee chairmanships that come with years in the Senate. No voter ever complained to his senator that he was bringing to much federal dollars to their little state.
My only question was whether in fact the project grants that ACORN received were actually earmarks or whether part of an actual community service grant programs that were knowing budgeted and not attached to unrelated bills. Since I couldn’t find any of the ACORN projects listed on the Earmark sites he listed I’m assuming in general they are not the result of earmarks. But I’ll let him do the research.
If someone wants to say that they feel that the ACORN projects are wasteful spending that’s fine, but it should be done on a case by case basis rather than just saying "They received $31 million (which happens to be a over a ten year period for a huge number of varied projects throughout the United States) and therefore are wasting tax dollars even though I don’t mention what any of the projects actually are or who benefits from them " Especially when it’s still hasn’t been shown whether or not the funds they received were as a result of Earmarks.
I do. They actually hurt the very people they are meant to help. The private sector can do a much better job issuing grants.
All the money thrown at the education system results in increased prices to go to school. It increases the frills offered, increases the expectations. No longer can most people save to go to higher education, but now they are required to get a loan to do so. Also, since loans have artificially low interest rates, that makes the amount of loan money received higher which makes the schools offer more bloated and needless things. This further increases the costs of education and makes it harder for the prudent people who prefer to save for their education.
He can veto the whole bill and send it back to congress demanding changes and not signing it until those changes are made.
Shouldn’t your representatives be submitting all earmarks they receive and never vote for them? Afterall, earmark requests are simply a request for one’s stolen [tax] money back.
That is a loaded question. On the face of it, no, of course not. However, if one looks at what has happened to the ratio of students to non-teaching staff (and I might throw in some sports complexes) over the past 30 years… teachers and education yes, self perpetuating bureaucracy I will have to take a pass on.
I have yet to find any of the funding for ACORN is directly from an earmark…I am not throwing in the towel, yet, as the DOJ has also started an investigation, and I am certain Kenneth Starr will somehow be resurrected for this one…oh, boy…is it too early to talk of impeachment (LOL)?