AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

I didn't have to read it to know there were pet project funding in it; that's how Washington DC works; and that's not going to change even under Obama.

It's funny how you conservatives complain about all the "pork" now after Bush increased our deficit to its highest levels while growing our government, and crucified our economy.

Shouting "wolf" now is a bit late.

Committee on Appropriations
http://appropriations.house.gov/

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/PressSummary02-12-09.pdf

Partial cut and paste of the Summary prepard by the Appropriations Committee:






WTF????

You are nutz.

Foxie again fails the laugher test. According to a recent "report" from 40 to 50% of the earmarks comes from the "conservatives." Also, this from Debra's post:

Debra, I don't know how a trillion dollar stimulus package works exactly, since I've never seen one in my lifetime. Maybe the President can just allocate the money authorized to all the agencies and he gets to decide how much they spend and when they spend it. I've never seen anything like this in my lifetime. But I'm guessing that it works like the federal budget that also authorizes broad categories of spending. But neither the President nor Congress can spend one penny of the Federal budget without appropriation authority from Congress and that is accomplished through an appropriations bill.

Can the stimulus package be spent without such an appropriations bill? I can't say that I know for sure, but if it can, it would be unprecedented. But since even the President doesn't know for sure where most of the money is actually going to be spent yet, I'm guessing that Congress will write appropriations bills to release the stimulus package money just like they do for anything else.

If that isn't the case, then I will apologize for my error regarding that. I just have a very hard time believing they handed Barack Obama more than 700 billion plus all the other money and do not have any say in what he now does with it.

Oh gosh CI, I'm so sorry. I foolishly thought that the President could veto a GOP earmark too. He can't? My mistake I guess. I'm sure you are much more informed about that than I thought I was.

You really don't understand anything do you? Obama is trying his best to "work" with the conservatives. What's you problem? That they don't fit your MAC definition? LOL

Muttering that I tried to be decent to CI. Oh well......taking a deep breath....I will not feed the trolls, argue with idiots, or engage in exercises in futility....I will not feed the trolls, argue with idiots, or engage in exercises in futility.

(I will point out that CI posted a link to an article that he said was interesting, and now seems to be admitting that he didn't read it.)

I think the basic idea is to sell the United States into slavery and in the process set themselves (libtards) up in perpetuity as the central place everybody goes for bread and circuses.

You continue to miss the whole point about being a MAC or conservative. Conservatives (MACs) always complain about the tax and spend liberals, but look at what the conservatives are doing on this appropriations bill; 40 to 50% are from conservatives, and they're the "minority party." You still don't get it do you?

Okay. Do you want to be the jackass or the elephant in that circus? Or does it make any difference?

Fox wrote:

Only a few clips where Jim Carey's character tried to cover up the truth, spoken involuntarily by his mouth, with almost spinal reflexivity with his hand. Question is whether this movie informed the law you mentioned that allows soviet like historical reconstruction. But is this law that allows almost real-time rehabilitation of Congressional members general knowledge among the electorate? I think not. Oh, well.



Or more in character: make sure the DLGR's congressional appropriation was so parsimonious it could not afford the video tape : insist that it publish in 32 different languages while denyng American visas to those who could interpret, while simultaneously encouraging (Coulter-like) those of non english speaking mono-linguistic nanny's and gardeners.



You mean like its present attempt to add two more democrats to the house via giving representation to D.C. residents against strict Constitutional proscription? Wonder what each USSC Supreme Court justice would think of this? I hope they can all hold on for at least another 4 years, well some of them anyway.

JM

Funny, but from the comments -



You might as well just say 'Democrats are poopy-heads!'

Cycloptichorn

Debra Law wrote:

You seem to think all my posts (given that you read them and make an honest attempt at comprehension) refer to just Democrats/Liberals/Progressives. I and others MAC's here have pointed to actions on both sides of the aisle that violate MAC principles. News Flash Debra: Not all republicans adhere to MAC principles and some Democrats do. Bush has ignored many MAC principles and I am still convinced that John McCain was more concerned with perceived world injustices then MAC principles (If he really understood them at all). If you want to rail against politicians taking our money and ingratiating themselves to those who would elect them Ted Stevens-like join us. If you think any politician is lining their pockets or throwing us under buses join us. We can work together towards those goals.

Question: How do you feel about republican Florida Gov Crist's program for Hurricane Insurance? Are you for or against? Why?

Question: Would you be for a 9/11 type impartial commission to investigate exactly what caused and/or contributed to our present financial crisis (your raping of the country) that pulled no punches and named ALL parties involved? We could even use one of President Obama's Advisors like Paul Volker! I am for it. How about you? If not...why? (Please no "its time to move on" excuses that surely would be rejected by the parents of a female rape victim). Wouldn't be nice to know exactly how the republicans pulled it off?

JM

Pubbies are going to have to make some big changes in a big hurry if they ever want to compete again. The dems are setting up a system in which nobody will ever be able to compete again past some point, and that point is close.

You do know that this video will be considered racist and/or sexist. This, of course is why nobody in their right mind will want to have an "honest debate or dialog" about racism despite the Attorney General's most fervent wishes.



JM

Here is more evidence of "earmarks" in the stimulus package--



U.S. Government

This story was co-published [2] with MSNBC.com

Lumped together, the House [3] (PDF) and Senate [4] (PDF) versions of the economic stimulus plan number some 1,400 pages, roughly the equivalent of the complete works of Shakespeare.

And some of the language is just as artfully crafted.

The package includes an insurance exemption -- but only for companies that work on recreational boats longer than 65 feet. Another provision would lift a Medicare regulation affecting only three long-term care hospitals in the country. There's also language requiring the Transportation Security Administration to buy 100,000 uniforms from U.S. apparel makers.

In theory and publicity, the package is "earmark free." But it contains dozens of narrowly defined programs that send money to specific areas or cater to special interests, despite President Obama's pledge to pass "an economic recovery plan that is free from earmarks and pet projects."

Some -- like the yacht workers' exemption -- would take little or nothing from taxpayer pockets. Others, like $3 billion in extra transit money added in by the House, are handing ammo to critics who say the stimulus plan, now at about $900 billion in the Senate, has morphed into a Christmas list.

As part of the ShovelWatch [5] project with WNYC radio in New York, ProPublica plumbed the depths of the stimulus bills looking to see how closely Congress is coming to Obama's stated goal.

In part, the answer hinges on what's an "earmark." Democrats insist they are nowhere in the plan; Republicans see "pork" everywhere. So we cribbed from criteria Congress laid out in a 2007 reform bill: language that aims spending at specific programs, states or localities, often at a member's request.

Specific location? The Senate stimulus contains $50 million for habitat restoration and other water needs in the San Francisco Bay area. There is another $62 million for military projects in Guam.

Specific industry? The House bill includes an amendment authored by Democratic Rep. Bruce Braley setting aside $500 million for biofuel makers, which he says, would bring jobs home to Iowa.

Specific program? There's $198 million to compensate Filipino World War II veterans for their service. Most don't live in the United States.

In a speech about the stimulus last month, Obama acknowledged that there often are valid arguments for earmarks. At the same time, he called for restraint.

"Many of these projects are worthy and benefit local communities," he said. "But this emergency legislation must not be the vehicle for those aspirations. This must be a time when leaders in both parties put the urgent needs of our nation above our own narrow interests."

By far the bulk of the stimulus spending will be doled out through agencies like the Department of Transportation or programs such as Medicaid and food stamps that use existing formulas. That brings some accountability to road and bridge projects, for example, which typically go through a state process that determines which should get funded first. Transit money, too, is allotted by formula.

But when the sausage-making gets going on Capitol Hill, there's always an end around.

Two House Democrats with a hunger for transit money -- Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York and Ed Perlmutter of Colorado -- helped secure the extra $3 billion, pushing total transit funding in the House bill to $12 billion. Nadler touted [6] it as a boon for commuters that would help New York City's financially strapped subway system jumpstart work on a huge backlog of projects.

'Not the Flamingo Hall of Fame'

Supporters of the narrowly defined projects say criticism is unwarranted. Their projects not only save or create jobs, they say, but in some cases correct oversights in previous legislation and add little to nothing to the overall cost of the stimulus package.

No doubt the yacht repair yards in Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz's district in South Florida would benefit from the insurance exemption for work on boats longer than 65 feet.

The current law governing such insurance was intended to draw a distinction between workers on recreational boats and workers on big ships, who faced greater dangers and were required to carry additional longshoremen's insurance, she explained in offering the provision.

But since then, yachts have gotten longer and owners have skipped to Mexico, Canada or Caribbean for cheaper repairs, creating a hardship for small businesses in South Florida, Seattle, Massachusetts and the Great Lakes, said Wasserman Schultz's spokesman, Jonathan Beeton.

"It's not the Flamingo Hall of Fame," he said. "This is if you are a carpet installer... In order for you to go in as a small business owner and step foot on that boat, you have to have longshoreman insurance for your employees."

"The economic impact on these areas is pretty high," he said.

Rep. Larry Kissell made a similar argument when he offered the amendment [7] (PDF) for TSA uniforms, which are made from fabric from North Carolina but sewn together in Mexico and Honduras. Working in the local textile industry for 27 years, Kissell witnessed plant closings as more and more jobs fled overseas.

"The immediate impact would be to bring the assembly work to the U.S., which would create jobs," said Lloyd Wood of the American Manufacturing Trade Action Coalition, an industry group that has lobbied for the provision for five years.

But there is also political bonus for Kissell, a freshman congressman. If the amendment survives, he and Democrats would gain an early victory that Kissell's Republican predecessor couldn't secure.

Righting Wrongs, Rewarding Service

The provision involving the Medicare regulation for three hospitals demonstrates how easily complexity gets lost in the political wrangling.

The amendment was inserted by Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., in the House Ways and Means Committee. The three hospitals that would benefit are in or near the districts of Rep. Earl Pomeroy, D-N.D., and Rep. John Larson, D-Conn., who sit on the Ways and Means Committee. The president of the Connecticut hospital is also president of the National Association of Long Term Hospitals, which has lobbied for the change.

"Would this be considered an earmark?" Rep. Wally Herger, R-Calif., pressed Stark at the committee meeting.

"We get information from members about hospitals in their district that are affected," answered Stark, chairman of the health subcommittee. "We try and always have tried, as far as I can remember the last 25 years, to accommodate the requirements of hospitals in members' district in so far that we think it's good policy."

"Whether you could ascribe an earmark to the member who brought it to us or not," said Stark, "is up to the person who wants to raise the issue or not."

Larson spokeswoman Emily Barocas said the measure fixes a mistake in a previous law that unintentionally excluded the three hospitals. The Stark amendment means additional Medicare funding for the hospitals. Association officials and aides to Pomeroy did not return calls.

Stark has also drawn scrutiny for another provision, first reported by The Associated Press, that would reverse a $134 million Medicare cut for hospice care. The National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization has fought against the reduction, spending $1 million last year and employing 10 outside lobbyists, according to public records compiled by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

One of those lobbyists was once a top aide to Stark and the Ways and Means Committee. The hospice organization confirmed that he worked on the Medicare provision for the bill. Stark's office said neither the congressman nor the committee had contact with the former aide and lobbyist.

"I don't think there was undue influence -- this provision has been vetted and studied," said Jon Keyserling, the organization's vice president for public policy. "Someone has to step up and speak for patients and families who are going to be denied services if this rate cut was allowed to go into effect."

Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, hasn't said that Filipino veterans' compensation would stimulate the economy. The matter is more one of fulfilling a moral obligation made generations ago.

In 1941, President Franklin Roosevelt enlisted about 470,000 residents of the Philippines, at the time a U.S. commonwealth, to fight the Japanese. Many were captured or killed in the war, including in the Bataan Death March. The president promised compensation, but it was revoked by Congress in 1946.

Since then, Filipino veterans -- now aged 85 to 98 -- have fought to restore it, and Inouye has been a big supporter. "The nation made a solemn promise," he said. "This is not the America I know and love." Under the Senate bill, Filipino vets who are U.S. citizens would get $15,000; noncitizens would get $9,000.

Washington's New Parlor Game

Fear of having their handiwork labeled an "earmark" has led some drafters to some awkward circumlocutions. Take this wording from the section of the Senate Appropriations Committee report on $2 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers:

"The committee has granted extraordinary discretion to the administration in determining how the funds provided in this act should be expended. ...The committee is not recommending funding for specific projects in this act. However, the committee has had extensive consultation with the Corps concerning how the funds provided under this heading could be used in broad program categories."

Such cryptic language has spawned a Washington parlor game: What do the appropriators actually mean? For example, the House bill gives a priority for higher education repairs to institutions "affected by a Gulf hurricane disaster." Is that Tulane University in New Orleans? The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston?

Clever drafting could give Democrats enough cover to say they met the president's goal, said Keith Ashdown of the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense.

"I think it's been watered down enough that it gives the administration deniability that they can meet that pledge," said Ashdown, whose group advocates for better disclosure of congressional earmarks. "They can say there are no earmarks in this legislation, but when you look at the details of each provision, the reality becomes murkier."

The Democrats have backed down on some things. Amid criticism, House Democrats pulled $200 million for Washington's National Mall and a provision extending Medicaid to family planning. Senate Democrats dropped $75 million for programs to help smokers quit and $400 million to fight HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases.

Senators also voted to kill a tax break that would have allowed Hollywood studios to write off production costs for movies and TV shows.

The tempest over earmarking has made for some ironic moments. Take the case of Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, who put out a statement bashing Democrats for projects he deemed questionable.

"I have never been shy about seeking projects in those bills for my constituents," Young exclaimed, "but we have specific vehicles for that and this bill is not it."

Young, of course, is the former chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. In 2005, he teamed up with former Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens to snag one of the most infamous earmarks ever: $223 million for a project that became known as the "Bridge to Nowhere."

More than that, I fear we are reviving the welfare state to the point that people will be intentionally failing so as not to miss out on the freebies being promised or suggested. I'm not hearing many suggestions that people who actually are getting it right, who are doing what they need to do to support themselves, etc. will be acknowledged or rewarded in any way:

Foxfyre wrote:

More than that, I fear we are reviving the welfare state to the point that people will be intentionally failing so as not to miss out on the freebies being promised or suggested. I'm not hearing many suggestions that people who actually are getting it right, who are doing what they need to do to support themselves, etc. will be acknowledged or rewarded in any way:

end of quote:

Because they are not getting rewarded in any way, there is a great deal of anger building up. The Chicago Tribune, ONE OF OBAMA'S STRONGEST BACKERS, has found in recent surveys that 70% of respondents think that the bailout of people who are failing to pay their mortgages is unfair.

The Boston Globe had a great article about the anger building up among people who had played by the rules and paid their mortgages.


Angry Americans ask: Where's MY bailout?
from The Boston Globe


Brian Carpenter bought his Woburn, Mass. home in 1980, and 29 years later, he has never missed a mortgage payment. It wasn’t always easy. With three kids, it meant driving old cars, clipping coupons, and brown-bagging it to work.

Now, he sees the federal government committing nearly $1 trillion to bail out banks and struggling homeowners, and nearly $800 billion to offset economic damage caused by reckless lending and borrowing. What’s in it for him? Probably $13-a-week, the middle-class tax cut in the stimulus bill.

”What about people like me who are playing by the rules, who got a mortgage we could afford?” said Carpenter, 52, who programs building management systems for MIT Lincoln Laboratory. ”Maybe I’m too old school, but you sign on the bottom line, and you’re responsible for it.”

Carpenter is among the vast majority of Americans who work, pay mortgages, borrow responsibly, and now find themselves facing the bill to bail out those who didn’t. Over the years they lived within their means. Now they’re asking: What for?

The anger underscores the dangers government faces in private sector rescues. While such interventions aim to benefit everyone by preventing severe damage to the economy, they also risk encouraging irresponsible behavior in the future. Economists call this ”moral hazard.”

In other words, if homeowners believe the government will lower their payments if they fall behind, they won’t have as much incentive to keep paying mortgage bills on time.

”We’re telling individuals, ’Go ahead, buy a bigger house than you think you can afford because the government is going to bail you out,’” said Dan Mitchell, economist at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank in Washington. ”If you’re responsible, if you do the right thing, then you feel like a sucker.”

The spending on bailouts and stimulus works out to the equivalent of $11,000 for each of the nation’s approximately 160 million tax filers. The total costs, however, are expected to decline when the government sells its bank stakes after the system stabilizes.

But most Americans, 67 percent, don’t expect this spending to improve their financial positions, according to a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll conducted last week.

Randy Schmid, 50, of Worcester, is one of them. A self-employed consultant, Schmid and his wife Dominika are renters. They looked into buying a home a few years ago. They hoped to find a house they could afford on a single income, so if one of them lost work, they could still meet their obligations. They didn’t.

”If we would have lived beyond our means,” he said, ”we would have gotten a handout.”

At one level, the massive government intervention is aimed only at certain segments of the population. For example, 93 percent of homeowners are up-to-date on their mortgages. Obama’s $275 billion housing plan unveiled last week aims to help as many as 9 million homeowners who are facing foreclosure or struggling to pay their mortgage.

More than 140 million Americans are working, compared with about 12 million unemployed. The $787 billion stimulus signed into law last week extends unemployment benefits and subsidizes healthcare coverage for the unemployed.


But the hope is that this targeted intervention will stabilize, then lift the economy as a whole.

Many economists say foreclosures and unemployment will soar without massive government spending. The economy has slipped into a downward cycle of tightening credit, falling spending, and shrinking demand, resulting in rising layoffs and foreclosures that begin the cycle again.

Nariman Behravesh, chief economist at IHS Global Insight in Lexington, agreed that it is unfair that people who made good decisions pay for those who didn’t. But the costs would be much higher without government help to boost demand, create jobs, and stabilize the housing market.

”When you get a situation where the economy is in a free fall, the governments role is to fix the system,” Behravesh said. ”What’s in it for everyone is this great recession doesn’t morph into the Great Depression, version 2.0.”

At its worst, nearly 1 in 2 first mortgages were in default during the Great Depression and 1 in 4 workers were jobless. Double-digit unemployment rates lasted for more than a decade. The current US unemployment rate is 7.6 percent

Jane Cummings, a 34-year-old software engineer from Hamilton, also has mixed feelings. She said she believes the government needed to do something to help the economy. But she added, ”I don’t think they should be bailing out people who aren’t making good financial decisions. It’s not fair, but I think we might have to bite the bullet.”

Many others take a harsher view, objecting to the idea of taxpayer money going to help people who borrowed and spent without regard to consequences. ”I don’t appreciate paying for someone else’s mortgage,” said Ashling Gowell, 38, a stay-at-home mother who lives in southeastern Massachusetts. ”I almost feel its bailing out someone who overspent on their credit card.”

Certainly, said Steve Pratt, who co-owns a small healthcare consulting firm, there are people who deserve help, such as those who lost jobs and are struggling to pay mortgages. Unfortunately, said Pratt, 49, of Braintree, the bailouts reward people who were greedy, stupid, or both.

”They’re not differentiating the people really in need from the people who took on too much debt and pushed it to the limits of what they could pay,” Pratt said. ”Personal responsibility got lost. Now, we’re all going to pay.”