Congress changed its rules. If members would be so bold to ask taxpayers to fund a special pet project back home, they would have to do so in full view of the public, facing potential scrutiny. The rule change, passed under the title of "Congressional Earmark Reform," required that members' names and projects be listed in the appropriate legislation. This would allow members to chastise other members for earmarks during normal debate, which takes place on the House floor while reporters are reporting and cameras are watching.
It was a good reform, one that earned Pelosi and her fellow House Democrats well-deserved praise.
Pelosi's pledge to "drain the swamp" was short-lived. Apparently, she didn't mean what she said. Now she is allowing her Democratic colleagues to refill it, but in doing so they are trying to obscure it from public view with a huge fence.
http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/2007/06/17/DavidJSanders/342436.html
2007-06-18 06:23:20 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Last week, Rep. David Obey, the Wisconsin Democrat who serves as chairman of the powerful House Appropriations Committee, told members that spending bills from his committee would be earmark-free. Not to worry, Obey explained, members' requests for earmarks wouldn't go unanswered. In fact, he would make the process go more smoothly.
Obey said that he would add earmarks to the final conference report in the fall, while House and Senate negotiators worked out the differences between their respective spending bills.
The dirty little secret: When Congress' pork is added in conference, there will be no debate, no public scrutiny and no members chastising members for excesses. Taxpayers will be in the dark.
Once the conference committee turns out the negotiated product, no member can amend the legislation. Members will only be allowed to vote "yea" or "nay."
2007-06-18 06:24:14 · update #1
Not to worry, Obey claimed that he and his staff will go over every project with a fine-tooth comb. Trusting appropriators, much less a single appropriator, to do the right thing with a blank check in the room - well, those days are over. No one person can do the job that should be left to 435 members.
So to whom is Obey accountable ? Madame Speaker? Apparently not.
Pelosi, with Obey at her side, proposed a slight change during a Tuesday press conference. "Why don't we leave here today forgetting the word earmark?" she said when asked by reporters about her apparent flip-flop on congressional rules. Pelosi said she simply preferred to call them "legislative directives."
Her justification on the name change: This is legislative spending as opposed to executive spending.
2007-06-18 06:25:27 · update #2
so far jeb black best answer. they're all crooks amen.
2007-06-18 07:00:06 · update #3
ohyeah? really? Israel is the problem? lol...thank you for your pro-terrorist position. nasty nancy went to syria the home of terrorist scum....check reality.
2007-06-18 07:01:04 · update #4
She should resign the day Bush does. They all lied and dumb americans still vote for em? God save us all!
2007-06-18 06:26:21 · answer #1 · answered by jeb black 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋
NO, i've got not got faith Pelosi. She is a regular liar. She knew precisely what water boarding is. seems to me that the two Obama and pelosi like to declare i don't understand something continuously. yet they're very knowledgeable human beings. this would not compute. that is basically the same old CYA trick.
2016-11-25 21:17:39 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I could be wrong on this, but doesn't the appropriations committee approve funding for top secret projects? If so, it then makes sense that there should be no earmarks.
2007-06-18 06:31:41 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
LOL, maybe I should start screaming Pelosi lied like the libs do about Bush every 5 seconds?
2007-06-18 06:28:01 · answer #4 · answered by booman17 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
pelosi is the quintessential liberal hypocrite. what you do is bad, what we do is justified. there is one set of rules for you and another for us. she has no intention of draining anything, she is only interested in making it illegal to be a republican and keeping the dumbocrats in power forever. murtha, hastings, reid, jefferson, these are the 'honest', incorruptible, patriotic people she puts her trust in? who does she think she's kidding here?... she is a gigantic phoney-baloney like all the rest and anyone who believes anything she says, is most likely a kool-aid drinking dipwad...
2007-06-18 06:55:28 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Sure as long as she takes the rest of congress and the bush administration with her.
2007-06-18 06:28:24 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I don't support anyone who lies or misleads, but shouldn't you have been asking this question for the last six years?
2007-06-18 06:29:06 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, she should.. but wait until she has been in there for four of five years yet.. and oh yeah, starts a war that kills 3000 of our young troops.
Then.. you bet she should resign.
2007-06-18 06:27:49 · answer #8 · answered by Debra H 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
the israelis sure like pelosi, they named a huge park after her. seems she is a friend of aipac and israel, you don't seem to have your facts straight.
All liars should resign and be put on trial by society.
2007-06-18 06:27:27 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
Her biggest problem is she's more radical than the rest of the liberal Democrats, and they don't go along with her bovine excrement.
_____________________________
KrazyKyngeKorny (Krazy, not stupid)
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
2007-06-18 06:28:26 · answer #10 · answered by krazykyngekorny 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋