AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

No, that is obvious bs you are saying. If what you say is true, no congressman could vote for anything that benefits his or her own state, even if it was the only thing in a bill. Such would be pure nonsense.

I think the common sense understanding of an earmark is when an unrelated provision is slipped into a bill that has a wholly different purpose than the primary purpose of the bill.

Congressional earmarks are often defined loosely as guarantees of federal expenditures to particular recipients in appropriations-related documents. The federal Office of Management and Budget defines earmarks as funds provided by Congress for projects or programs where the congressional direction (in bill or report language) circumvents Executive Branch merit-based or competitive allocation processes, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the Executive Branch to manage critical aspects of the funds allocation process.

Another reason your logic makes no sense is - would you be willing to bet that no other senator from any other state that had beneficiaries from other parts of that bill did not vote for the bill or participate in its preparation?

Were the other provisions in the bill without Kyle's provision also earmarks to those states that benefitted from those as well?

Are you going to be consistent, cyclops, or are you going to follow the same old line of partisan reasoning you always follow?

I believe the salient point here is - did the bill otherwise name in the bill other specific lawsuits or settlements by the government with indians and black farmers? Such as, did it name other pending cases? After all, how many cases can indians and black farmers have? If others were named or implied, I don't think this was an earmark.

It seems obvious to me that if Obama's bill was designed for the purpose of settling claims by black farmers and American Indians against the federal government, those claims or cases must have been named or implied in the bill already, without Kyle's provision for the cases in Arizona. Unless you can show that the bill did not name or imply other cases or claims in other specific states, I believe your argument is obviously wrong. And so was the report by AP also wrong.

None of that is material to whether it is an earmark or not, at all. You just don't know what an earmark is. Or, more likely, you know you're wrong but can't admit it.
Cycloptichorn

Let me get this straight, cyclops, are you now arguing that any bill that benefits any congressman's home state is now considered an earmark?

For example, if Kyle or anybody else in congress that is from Arizona, California, New Mexico, or Texas votes for building or enacting more border security along their southern borders, is that now considered an earmark? I frankly think that would be silly, but I guess nothing surprises me coming out of Democrats these days.

Let me be clear, if this was a true earmark, I would oppose it, and I would agree with you. For example, if Kyle attached this to a bill to raise funding for the troops in Afghanistan, then it would clearly be an earmark. Instead, it is in a bill intended for this very thing, in fact that was the entire purpose for the bill, to settle greviances with black farmers and indian tribes.

Quote:

Let me get this straight, cyclops, are you now arguing that any bill that benefits any congressman's home state is now considered an earmark?

>< aaargh, it's like arguing with a fencepost!
Obviously this isn't true. But when a Senator who isn't part of the normal appropriations process inserts language into a bill that benefits his home state, it's an earmark. It's pork.

The whole point is that he's not doing it because the project or proposal merits it, but because it benefits him politically.

Quote:

For example, if Kyle or anybody else in congress that is from Arizona, California, New Mexico, or Texas votes for building or enacting more border security along their southern borders, is that now considered an earmark? I frankly think that would be silly, but I guess nothing surprises me coming out of Democrats these days.

First of all, it's Kyl, not Kyle.
Second, it is plainly obvious that you have little idea how appropriations bills are formed or the process by which projects are chosen to be included in it. I can't be responsible for your total lack of education on this subject. How do YOU think the process works? How do projects get included in spending bills in the first place, Okie?

Quote:

Let me be clear, if this was a true earmark, I would oppose it, and I would agree with you. For example, if Kyle attached this to a bill to raise funding for the troops in Afghanistan, then it would clearly be an earmark. Instead, it is in a bill intended for this very thing, in fact that was the entire purpose for the bill, to settle greviances with black farmers and indian tribes.

It is a true earmark. It matters not one whit that the overall bill was related to the purpose of the earmark. You are mistaken when you believe that earmarks are ONLY for things which have nothing to do with the overall bill. Totally wrong.
Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

Let me get this straight, cyclops, are you now arguing that any bill that benefits any congressman's home state is now considered an earmark?

>< aaargh, it's like arguing with a fencepost!
Obviously this isn't true. But when a Senator who isn't part of the normal appropriations process inserts language into a bill that benefits his home state, it's an earmark. It's pork.

But what if there is already language in the bill benefitting other states? His provision appears to be very consistent with other parts of the bill and what it appropriates, that is the point.

Quote:

The whole point is that he's not doing it because the project or proposal merits it, but because it benefits him politically.

How do you know that? It seems that the project does merit it, based upon an initial review of it. Maybe it does benefit him politically, but maybe not as well.

Quote:

Quote:

Are you now going to claim that any bill that benefits a senator politically as automatically pork?For example, if Kyle or anybody else in congress that is from Arizona, California, New Mexico, or Texas votes for building or enacting more border security along their southern borders, is that now considered an earmark? I frankly think that would be silly, but I guess nothing surprises me coming out of Democrats these days.

First of all, it's Kyl, not Kyle.
Second, it is plainly obvious that you have little idea how appropriations bills are formed or the process by which projects are chosen to be included in it. I can't be responsible for your total lack of education on this subject. How do YOU think the process works? How do projects get included in spending bills in the first place, Okie?

As I have already said, are other projects specifically named in this bill before Kyl put his in there?

If so, this is not pork.

If not, maybe it is? This is for you to determine or prove before you begin to throw out fraudulent and partisan accusations.

Quote:

Let me be clear, if this was a true earmark, I would oppose it, and I would agree with you. For example, if Kyle attached this to a bill to raise funding for the troops in Afghanistan, then it would clearly be an earmark. Instead, it is in a bill intended for this very thing, in fact that was the entire purpose for the bill, to settle greviances with black farmers and indian tribes.

It is a true earmark. It matters not one whit that the overall bill was related to the purpose of the earmark. You are mistaken when you believe that earmarks are ONLY for things which have nothing to do with the overall bill. Totally wrong.
Cycloptichorn

Also, I would like to touch on your highway repair example. Lets say a bill is initiated to fix large bridges around the country, that are out of date, perhaps a bridge or two over the Mississippi River. If the bill appropriates 100 million to fix a few very outdated bridges that are named or implied in the bill, and lets say a senator from Mississippi learns that the DOT rates a bridge there in his home state as needing repair as much or more than those already named in the bill, and he inserts a provision in the bill to fix that bridge. Is that an earmark or not?

I don't think it is, because I think it merely fixes a problem or case of overlooking some of the problem in the bill, by amending the bill. What do you think?

Second scenario, a bill is proposed to spend 100 million on outdated bridges needing repair, but no specific projects are named in the bill, it is implied that the DOT will determine the priority for fixing which bridges first. Then the Mississippi senator inserts the provision for his bridge. Is that an earmark? Yes, I think it would be, especially if no information shows his bridge is almost the worst conditioned one. What do you think?

Good luck with the "Ican, please..." thing, Cyclo. Thumbs down works.

As I have already said, are other projects specifically named in this bill before Kyl put his in there? If so, this is not pork. If not, maybe it is? This is for you to determine or prove before you begin to throw out fraudulant and partisan accusations.

s I understand it, this may not be an earmark in that Sen Kyl's insertion is related to the subject of the bill.

Kyl moved things around such that the project in his state got moved to the top of the list being funded.