Republican minority in Congress??

[Evanescence]

Seems like our Conservative Rep friends are spending the stimulus money pretty LIBERALLY...

March 2, 2009, 6:42 pm
The Top 10 List of Earmarkers
By David M. Herszenhorn
Drinking water and wastewater projects, mosquito-trapping research and beaver management and control, are just a few of the pet priorities – known as earmarks, that catapulted Senator Thad Cochran, Republican of Mississippi, to the top of the charts for earmarks in the $410 omnibus spending bill, according to a spreadsheet released on Monday by Taxpayers for Common Sense, a Washington advocacy group.

Angry debate is expected throughout this week in Congress over the roughly 9,000 earmarks in the 2009 spending bill that critics complain represent the worst kind of pork barrel spending. And the signal by the White House that President Obama will sign the bill, despite his own campaign promises to end earmarks, has only fueled the fury, particularly among some Republicans, like Senator John McCain of Arizona.

But while Mr. McCain, a former nominee for president, has been among the loudest critics of the earmarks in the bill, the spreadsheet released by Taxpayers for Common Sense shows that six Republican senators are among the top 10 earmarkers, with Mr. Cochran, the senior Republican on the Appropriations Committee in the lead.


According to the spreadsheet, Mr. Cochran had a hand in 204 earmarks worth nearly $471 million in federal spending, with 65 of those earmarks worth nearly $77 million requested specifically by him.

Analyzed a different way, Senator Robert C. Byrd Jr., Democrat of West Virginia, takes the prize for top earmarker, with nearly $123 million in special projects included in the bill specifically at his request, out of a total of nearly $152 million that he requested in conjunction with other officials. Mr. Byrd, the senior member of the Senate, was chairman of the Appropriations Committee until the end of last year.

A number of senators make the top 10 list regardless of which way it is sorted. In no particular order, they included: Senator Daniel K. Inouye, Democrat of Hawaii, the new chairman of the Appropriations Committee; Senator Richard C. Shelby, Republican of Alabama; Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California; Senator Christopher S. Bond, Republican of Missouri; and Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa.

The Republican leader, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, makes the top 10 for the number of projects requested specifically by him, with 36 earmarks worth more than $51 million. But using the broader measure of Mr. McConnell’s overall involvement in more than $75.5 million in earmarks, puts him toward the middle of the pack.
E-mail This Print Share
Close Linkedin
Digg
Facebook
Mixx
My Space
Yahoo! BuzzPermalink
111th Congress, The Caucus, Congress, earmarks

[Howlin' Wolf]

Who watches the Watchmen?

[HumanityisSaved]

There is no difference between the Libbies and the Neo-Cons. They both want bigger government control over your lives. One might argue that the way they set out to achieve this immoral goal is different from one another but other than that they are the same.


DON'T TREAD ON ME!

[HotWireD]

There is no difference between the Libbies and the Neo-Cons. They both want bigger government control over your lives. One might argue that the way they set out to achieve this immoral goal is different from one another but other than that they are the same.


DON'T TREAD ON ME!


Same over this side of the pond. I imagine this is going on all over the world. We are accepting a society with a political class that rules over us, not for us, where the ones in power (which includes the people that hold the purse strings) decide what is best - for themselves.

Regardless of political pursuasion - they are all the same.

I like to think that politicians start on their careers with good intentions of how they can help everyone. However, I also believe that once they have been in the system they discover that corruption is the only way to get ahead and fall prey to their colleagues and the lobbyists.


I like the flag. Power for the people.

[Jesuslove]

There is no difference between the Libbies and the Neo-Cons. They both want bigger government control over your lives. One might argue that the way they set out to achieve this immoral goal is different from one another but other than that they are the same.


DON'T TREAD ON ME!

And really, do the conservatives do any more to shrink government? We've spent more during Bush's administration than any other previous administrations.

[WeaselInYerFoot]

There is no difference between the Libbies and the Neo-Cons. They both want bigger government control over your lives. One might argue that the way they set out to achieve this immoral goal is different from one another but other than that they are the same.


DON'T TREAD ON ME!

I like what I'm presently hearing from the Republican party. It's entertaining lip service, but I don't buy it. It's funny to see those who pushed for Pres. Bush's bailout bill last October, suddenly change fundamentals, and cry for smaller government and less spending against the current administration.

[Jesuslove]

I like what I'm presently hearing from the Republican party. It's entertaining lip service, but I don't buy it. It's funny to see those who pushed for Pres. Bush's bailout bill last October, suddenly change fundamentals, and cry for smaller government and less spending against the current administration.

Yeah, what's up with that? They weren't crying for smaller government while Bush was in office. I think the party is in shambles. They are criticizing everything as to distinguish themselves from the current economic crisis. Meanwhile, they are largely responsible for getting us into this situation.

[cheewiee]

The DNC was in shambles in 2004, and look what it did in 2 years...

It got back to its core, thats what the RNC needs to do, get back to its core...

[Jesuslove]

It will be interesting who the Republican party will pick to run for President on 12. I don't see any strong candidates in the field.

[VerbumReale]

It will be interesting who the Republican party will pick to run for President on 12. I don't see any strong candidates in the field.


As late as June of 92 people were saying the same thing about the democrats; that none of them could pose a threat to Bush sr. I remember there was even a skit on SNL lampooning the democratic debates where the candidates would actually try to convince people not to vote for them so they wouldn't get nominated.


But then along came Clinton. We're a long way away from 12, a lot can happen.

[Pouye]

It will be interesting who the Republican party will pick to run for President on 12. I don't see any strong candidates in the field.

Someone will crawl out of the wood works like Obama did... :D
To use a saying from Indiana Jones, "[They're] like a bad penny [they will] always turn up..."

Rock

[Jesuslove]

Someone will crawl out of the wood works like Obama did... :D
To use a saying from Indiana Jones, "[They're] like a bad penny [they will] always turn up..."

Rock

I hear ya! We just got rid of the last bad penny after 8 years.

[Evanescence]

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c97/scooterl/lizards_02.jpg

All lizards run in packs...

[VerbumReale]

The future success or lack of success of the Republican party is going to be as much determined by the success or lack of success of the Democrat's controlling the executive and legislative branches. This whole "It didn't happen on my watch..." garbage that Obama keeps pulling is only going to play so long. Yes, much of this did happen under the Bush administration. But he is gone, it's up to the Democrats now. To what degree Bush is to blame is irrelevant and it accomplishes nothing for Dems to keep dwelling on it (And yet somehow I have a feeling they will continue) If in 2012 we are no better off than we are today than it's not going to matter who's watch it happened on. Voters will know that nothing has changed and they will be looking to for someone else.

And no this does not mean that I am hoping that the Dems are not succesful. My honest hope is that in 2012 I am happy enough with the Obama administration that I might actually want to vote for him 2012. Based on what I have seen so far though, I don't foresee that happening.

The Republicans will re-group and someone will emerge, but an unsuccesful Obama administration could mean that it happens sooner than later.

[cheewiee]

So, Kennedy, Reagan, & Bush knew that tax hikes do not stimulate an economy, they knew that Tax Cuts stimulate an economy. Tax cuts for businesses to give them incentives to spend really work well.

The Tax Cuts passed by the Republican Congress and signed into Law by GWB were the right tax cuts at the right time. The fact that the recession of 01 was short and relatively painless is proof of that. I am convinced that Obama's economic policies will lead to another period of stagflation, and based on what we are seeing in relatively short order. I anticipate a GOP victory in 2012, honestly.

[VerbumReale]

So, Kennedy, Reagan, & Bush knew that tax hikes do not stimulate an economy, they knew that Tax Cuts stimulate an economy. Tax cuts for businesses to give them incentives to spend really work well.

The Tax Cuts passed by the Republican Congress and signed into Law by GWB were the right tax cuts at the right time. The fact that the recession of 01 was short and relatively painless is proof of that. I am convinced that Obama's economic policies will lead to another period of stagflation, and based on what we are seeing in relatively short order. I anticipate a GOP victory in 2012, honestly.

I don't know if you were responding to me but when I referred to much of this happening during the Bush administration, I wasn't pointing to his tax-cuts, I was referring to the bailouts that took place near the end of the Bush administration, not taking a position pro or con. But specifically I was alluding to an interview Obama did the other day where he once again pulled his "This didn't happen on my watch." garabage. My point is whether it happened during the Bush administration or the Obama administration is irrelevant. It's Pres Obama's problem now.

[cheewiee]

I don't know if you were responding to me but when I referred to much of this happening during the Bush administration, I wasn't pointing to his tax-cuts, I was referring to the bailouts that took place near the end of the Bush administration, not taking a position pro or con. But specifically I was alluding to an interview Obama did the other day where he once again pulled his "This didn't happen on my watch." garabage. My point is whether it happened during the Bush administration or the Obama administration is irrelevant. It's Pres Obama's problem now.

No...

Anyone who wants to lay blame a president (regardless of Bush or Obama) for the current economic mess really doesn't understand why or how we got to where we are now.

People who wish to blame a single person give to much credit to that single person, or office. This recession is in my opinion the fault of every American who decided to purchase homes we couldn't afford, it is the fault of every realtor who told home buyers about loans that turned out to be too good to be true, it is the fault of every mortgage broker that sold a mortgage to someone knowing that they could not possible repay the loan, it is the fault of every Property appraiser that appraised homes at more than they were really worth to curry business with greedy mortgage brokers, it is the fault of every banker that hid the true risk of these mortgages in securities...

The president does not have a magical dial in his office that he sets for the economy. All the President can do, is to guide Governmental response to the current economy.

I disagree with the steps Obama is taking. History has shown that tax increases drive down Gov. Revenue, and serve to slow an economy. History has repeatedly shown that tax decreases stimulate an economy, and drive up tax revenue.

The economic stimulation caused by Bush's tax cuts increased tax revenues for the federal Government.

[Evanescence]

So, Kennedy, Reagan, & Bush knew that tax hikes do not stimulate an economy, they knew that Tax Cuts stimulate an economy. Tax cuts for businesses to give them incentives to spend really work well.

The Tax Cuts passed by the Republican Congress and signed into Law by GWB were the right tax cuts at the right time. The fact that the recession of 01 was short and relatively painless is proof of that. I am convinced that Obama's economic policies will lead to another period of stagflation, and based on what we are seeing in relatively short order. I anticipate a GOP victory in 2012, honestly.

No way...the pendulum wont be that far over by then. People like and will like Obama for a long time...unless there is a major calamity that points to him.

The liberal and conservative pendulum swings every 8-10 yrs...not 4...

[cheewiee]

No way...the pendulum wont be that far over by then. People like and will like Obama for a long time...unless there is a major calamity that points to him.

The liberal and conservative pendulum swings every 8-10 yrs...not 4...

Really, then why was Bill Clinton the first Democrat to win re-election since Johnson, before that Truman?

I mean if the country was headed towards a liberal pendilum it would have been after Watergate, and had the Carter Presidency not been the abysmall failure that it was, Reagan would have had a much harder time gettting elected in 80.

Obama's policital capital will continue to plumit as the economy does. His political fate is tied the success and failure of this stimilus package.

If you think America got impatient about Iraq, think about how impatient they will be over food lines, evictions, forclosures, for a drawn out period of time.

If the economy isn't showing signs of serious recovery by November of 2010 the Republicans will regain control of the house and senate...

[Jesuslove]

No way...the pendulum wont be that far over by then. People like and will like Obama for a long time...unless there is a major calamity that points to him.

The liberal and conservative pendulum swings every 8-10 yrs...not 4...

I have to agree Ev... we won't see a Republican in the White House for a while!

[Evanescence]

If you think America got impatient about Iraq, think about how impatient they will be over food lines, evictions, forclosures, for a drawn out period of time.

If the economy isn't showing signs of serious recovery by November of 2010 the Republicans will regain control of the house and senate...


It will..and not becuase of Obama..but because of the natural course of action....

And, people will have a real bad taste in their mouth about Bush and his band of madmen,...and the reps that defended him, that it'll be a while...2 more elctions till one gets in. Sure, some may get osted in 2010 and 2012...but not many. The curse of the Neo-con mentality is long lasting...

But, if we just had a legit 3rd party to even things out... :P

[cheewiee]

It will..and not becuase of Obama..but because of the natural course of action....

And, people will have a real bad taste in their mouth about Bush and his band of madmen,...and the reps that defended him, that it'll be a while...2 more elctions till one gets in. Sure, some may get osted in 2010 and 2012...but not many. The curse of the Neo-con mentality is long lasting...

But, if we just had a legit 3rd party to even things out... :P

No it isn't... in 2004 everyone was talking about the demise of the DNC... One hurricane turned public opinion against Bush... One major gaffe and Obama is done... thats how politics work in this nation... The people are fickle and their memories short lived... If we are not out of this recession it will mean tragic things for Barack Obama...

[Jesuslove]

No it isn't... in 2004 everyone was talking about the demise of the DNC... One hurricane turned public opinion against Bush... One major gaffe and Obama is done... thats how politics work in this nation... The people are fickle and their memories short lived... If we are not out of this recession it will mean tragic things for Barack Obama...

I think people are willing to give Barack Obama a chance. The general perception is that Barack Obama is working hard and has competent people working for him and with him. Whether true or not, the general perception of Bush was that he is lazy, incompetent, and indifferent.

[cheewiee]

I think people are willing to give Barack Obama a chance. The general perception is that Barack Obama is working hard and has competent people working for him and with him. Whether true or not, the general perception of Bush was that he is lazy, incompetent, and indifferent.

The general perception can change, dramatically and rapidly... Obama's sky high approval ratings haven't even touched Bush's post 9-11, and we saw how quickly they dropped...

[Jesuslove]

The general perception can change, dramatically and rapidly... Obama's sky high approval ratings haven't even touched Bush's post 9-11, and we saw how quickly they dropped...

True, but Bush's perception of being indifferent was evident most everywhere. Whether Obama eventually fails or succeeds, I think most Americans believe that Obama cares.

[Howlin' Wolf]

True, but Bush's perception of being indifferent was evident most everywhere. Whether Obama eventually fails or succeeds, I think most Americans believe that Obama cares.


But Obama doesnt care, and like Cheewie has said, it wont take Americans long to see that. He has already lied to everybody when he called out republicans for earmarking and pork barrell spending, and then the first thing he does in office is triple the deficit with massive earmarks and pork. The low income african americans that turned out in record numbers wont see this, but any open minded person with half an education will see it.

[rossid]

Whoa! Just replying to the first post.

Out of $477B there are $77B in earmarks?

I though it was "only" $8B.

Listen to what my pro-abortion Catholic democrat senator said something stupid about how this pork should not be questioned.

[Jesuslove]

Whoa! Just replying to the first post.

Out of $477B there are $77B in earmarks?

I though it was "only" $8B.

Listen to what my pro-abortion Catholic democrat senator said something stupid about how this pork should not be questioned.

I like how you threw Catholic in there... why not refer to him as a pro-abortion Christian? I'm guessing it's either Harkin, McCaskill, or Durbin, depending on where you live.

[VerbumReale]

The general perception can change, dramatically and rapidly... Obama's sky high approval ratings haven't even touched Bush's post 9-11, and we saw how quickly they dropped...


Yep. Obama's approval rating has already dropped 9 points since the inauguration day. It's still over 50%, but this shows there is no reason to believe that Obama by any means has 2012 locked. Things can change in the blink of an eye.

[VerbumReale]

It will..and not becuase of Obama..but because of the natural course of action....

And, people will have a real bad taste in their mouth about Bush and his band of madmen,...and the reps that defended him, that it'll be a while...2 more elctions till one gets in. Sure, some may get osted in 2010 and 2012...but not many. The curse of the Neo-con mentality is long lasting...


Yeah it's ridiculous to think the Republicans could get control back in 2012. As if a party can go, in a matter of 4 years from being in complete shambles to gaining control of the presidency, the house and the senate. It's as ridiculous as beleieving that somebody can rise from relative obscurity to, oh I don't know make an inspring speech at a national convention that would launch him into the national spotlight and serve as a sprinboard for him to galvanize his party as they take control of the legislative branch and through his own candidacy they take the executive branch. Yeah, something like that could never happen.

Oh wait.