Redstate

It is stuff like this that makes me ashamed to be a Republican! I know what I believe in, and this is not it. I am not ashamed of what I believe in. I am ashamed that they carry the same party name as me.

Hasn't the House Majority Leader Election even registered with these people?

Revolutions have been started over less.

On this issue, he has been out in front for a long long time... He and Coburn need to clean up the joint.

we could get these requests made public.  Give every senator a day on the front page of the paper/blog/evening news and show just how they a throwing away OUR money.

I'd be surprised if anyone could meet the April 5, 2005 deadline.  No earmarks this year.  (I can hope.)

Two things: #1 you should know that this form isn't new. The approps committee always does this. Requests that do get funded are made public. Others are kept secret so incumbents can have cover to tell a constituent that a letter was forwarded on, even though the Rep knows it will never see the light of day.

#2 earmarks aren't as bad as portrayed. There certainly needs to be more transparency, like disclosing their sponsor and including them in the bills before it gets to a conference report to make the contents more publicly accessible.

That being said, sometimes people have a skewed perception of federal spending. It's been a principled GOP policy for decades to protect the highway trust fund: fuel taxes and heavy tire taxes go into a Highway Trust Fund (HTF) that is used only for transportation infrastructure. Fuel taxes aren't used in the general treasury and the general treasury does not go towards highways (if only it worked the same with social security). The HTF is distributed to states based on a formula that lawmakers have been successful at rigging: Alaskans chair the House and Senate Transportation committees (unlike dems, though, R's are limited to six-years in a single chairmanship). An earmark in the transportation bill did not mean new spending, it simply meant the state DOT or Transit Authority didn't have discretion as to where that $230 million would be used, it has to go for this one bridge.

Now, I certainly concur that ideally Congress would leave those decisions up to the states. But I do agree with a federal HTF, it's important to maintain and improve our infrastructure and 'user fees' are the fairest method.

I don't want to defend earmarks as they were used, I just want to make clear that the notion that your payroll taxes are going to build a bridge longer than the Golden Gate Bridge to an island witha population of 50 is totally wrong. The money justifiably comes from user fees and Congress simply overstepped by directing that money at a pet project instead of handing to the Alaska DOT.

http://www.jeffflake.com/

It's right on the front page, left side

I haven't seen one for a while, but he was singling out one example a week for a while.

So what are we going to do about it?

1.)  Throw the bums out and risk turning one house or both blue,

or

2.)  Protect the red nature of the houses for committee and leadership reasons, and try to pressure the porkers with hollow threats of "not voting for them"?

Sigh....THIS is the real danger of not having a valid opposition party.  Most of us absolutely won't consider voting for a socialist Dem, and the RNC knows that very well.  If we had a viable oppo party then we could bring electoral pressure on the porkers.  

It is past high time for the conservatives in purple and even blue states to mobilize -- we have to be able to maintain majorities while weeding out the institutionalized and disconnected folks in DC.

"Please review acceptable uses of federal dollars for each account."  -- That's the laugh line.

Not for me, at least. We didn't arrive at a $423 billion deficit by making sound fiscal decisions.

As a Dem, I can appreciate R's who support fiscal responsibility. Bush, though, is is running BIG government. I don't like tax-and-spend Democrats, but I deplore tax-cut-and-spend Republicans. And they are the ones running the show.  

Cheers to Redstate for posting this. It's an embarrassment to R's and Dems both.

If the budget were not in the state it was currently in, I'd agree that some earmarking is not bad, as it does pump some federal money into local economies...as long as the earmark project actually serves some realistic purpose.  Building things for the sake of building things isn't enough justification.

But given the dreadful mismanagement of the federal budget of the last 20ish years, I'd have to say that -any- earmarking is detrimental until they get the deficit under control and stabilize things.

Can anyone top the hogs from Alaska?  I particularly like the joke about all the politician's relatives getting a bridge for Christmas.

And by the way, good job to the Wall Street Journal Editorial Page for keeping the light on.

I just noticed the "2005" on the date. Is this last years letter being passed off as this years letter? I think it is important we clarify this!

Blanton - can you get clarification? Please!

Both houses and the President of the same party are scary to me. The President rubber-stamps bills that come form his party, and congress knows it.   Everybody says they are for financial responsibility, just not in their own district. Actually it was quite fun listening to the piggies squeal when President Clinton utilized the limited line-item veto he had at the time.  By the way, what happened to that limited line item veto idea?

The email was sent out today.

Given his vociferous support for highway earmarks in the context of a thread about LaborHHS earmarks, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that our friend slowpitch is employed by the esteemed chairman of the Senate committee that wrote the pork-laden transportation abomination.

It was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.  Not sure on the specifics, but it would basically require passing a constitutional amendment to bring it back.

Not only was it ruled unconstitutional, but "our" guys were split on it:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/06/25/scotus.lineitem/

Stevens was joined in his opinion by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Justices Antonin Scalia, Sandra Day O'Connor and Stephen Breyer dissented. Scalia, who wrote the dissent, made clear his disagreement by taking the unusual step of using nine minutes in court to read from his opinion.

"The title of the Line Item Veto Act, which was perhaps designed to simplify for public comprehension, or perhaps merely to comply with the terms of a campaign pledge, has succeeded in faking out the Supreme Court," Scalia said. "The president's action it authorizes in fact is not a line-item veto."

So not only is there a precedent against, but a sizable portion of our faction would likely rule the same way again.  Alito and Roberts both seem very mindful of precedent, especially where the Court is concerned.

Line-item veto is dead -- we have to enforce budgetary discipline from the legislative side.

THIS is the Real Washington...the washington I know and hate.

This letter is like a toy store where shallow parents go to goodies to win their kids' affection...er, votes.

I have to deal with form e-mails/letters too that don't get updated. I just wanted to be sure.

He might rule differently on the line-item veto.  Might be worth sending it through again.

This kind of thing has been going on in DC for decades, perhaps since the Revolution. But I get the point. It is particularly egregious now that government has grown, budgets have grown, deficits have grown, borrowing has grown, the National Debt has grown, all of which is to say, fiscal responsibility has decreased. Is this a new kind of conservatism we're not appreciating?

Actually I would guess it more likely that Alito would allow it; he appears to favor a strong executive....at any rate that would still make it a 5-4 loser.

It just seems that any issue that divides Scalia and Thomas is unlikely to have a different outcome.

If it were to be sent up again, it would depend a great deal on the wording of the act; not only does it have to pass constitutional muster and still be effective, but also it must be so strong as to be something for which the Court is willing to overturn its own precedent.

Don't get me wrong; I like the idea of the line-item veto.  But it's been batted away once already.

Blanton, Ramesh Ponnuru has cited your post and challenged your interpretation of the memo over in the Corner at National Review Online.  

I wonder, though, if he's misinterpreting the letter. Here's the passage he finds most objectionable: "Please be realistic regarding your project priority list. You should not have 50 project priorities. Remember, these lists will be held confidential by the committee." Blanton highlights that last sentence.

That passage doesn't read to me like an encouragement of a free-for-all. It sounds like a request for restraint. What the committee is telling senators is that they don't have to ask for every project that someone in their state wants. The submissions won't be made public, so nobody in a senator's state will be disappointed, or angry, that the senator hasn't requested an additional project. That's the only reading of the last sentence that makes sense in the context of the preceding two sentences.

I would be interested in your thoughts about his thoughts.  Congratulations for being noticed.

They both say one thing, and do another.  Why the hell do we ever advocate for any politicians anymore when they go ahead and stab us in the back.  This is just like Bush's State of the Union, he said one thing, and now his budget proposal says the total opposite.  

I used to make lawyer jokes, "what do you call a 1000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?  A good start."  Perhaps its time to toss the politicians into the ocean.

(1) "Enhanced Recision Authority" is similar, but different enough that it might pass SCOTUS.

(2) Repeal the Budget and Impoundment Act 1974.  Without that law, the Executive would retain the right NOT to spend funds allocated for specific programs.  (I believe the portion of that Act that makes it currently illegal for him to refuse-to-spend is, itself, an unconstitutional encroachment by the LegisBranch on the ExecBranch.  But I'm not on SCOTUS)

"the notion that your payroll taxes ... is totally wrong"

I dont recall anyone making a distinction between payroll taxes, use fees, gross receipts tax, etc. because, honestly, who cares what it's called. Unless earmark money is appearing magically from some money tree, it all comes from the same place, the American taxpayer, no matter how clever the subterfuge is in hiding the tax from you.

the taxes on fuel are good. user fees to invest in new/repaid old infrastructure are good. giving it to states to decide how to use is good; they can make those decisions best.

what's bad is congress directing the states to use them for specific projects, not the spending itself.

media reports generally don't make the distinction, and when people hear that a bridge is beng built to Kach... Island, they think it's being diverted from a big general fund. i think there's a distinction to be made.

but no luck. But as long as you're betting, you can send doughnuts to me at:

4210 13th st ne

washington, dc 20017

I'll look for them shortly.

it is your opinion that it is good that i have to pay roughly 18 cents a gallon federal as well as 25 cents state as well as a 5 cent "gross receipts tax" on top of my income tax, phone bill tax, sin tax on beer, etc.

Actually I completely disagree that gas tax is good unless you get rid of income tax. The reason is that gas tax is something that is under the radar for most people and then they actually end up blaming the oil companies for making a 10% profit while goverment quietly takes in a much bigger chunk. but you never hear about that. At least in income tax it is more visible.

But it all comes out of the same pocket. So I feel the need to make the distinction.

Why couldn't congress divide the spending bills by line item and send the president a mass of bills? That would have the net effect of a line item veto power, but not have the constitutional problem. Of course, that would require common sense, discipline and a willingness to work for the common good. Fat chance.

Last sentence should read "so i feel I DONT need to make the distinction".

original light fixtures but few outlets, low water pressure but radiator heating, creaky stairs but nice hardwood floors. and great roommates.

I certainly don't argue that we could cut back outlays and find a differnet revenue source than an income tax (abolish the 16th), but I very much disagree that gas taxes aren't the way to go.

Think about it: you have to a be a pretty hardcore libertarian to say the govenrment does not have a role in securing the land for, building new, and maintaining existing roads. I think this is the prime example of when a government should use it's authority to collect and spend for the greater good.

And how would you pay for this??? You would rather pay for construction with an income tax as long as it's 'more open'? Maybe that's not what you intended, but that's what I read.

I don't think those avid bikers and walkers should have to contribute an equal amount to transportation as a cab driver. Furthermore, fuel efficiency is most closely correlated with weight, and heavier vehicles wear out the roads faster. A fuel tax incidentally collects from those who should be paying more.

I certainly think fuel taxes, vehicle registration fees and other costs associated with driving should be funding transportation infrastructure. How is any other system just?