Pork Busting Earmark Reform Bills Passes House

[Overpaid Slacker]

IIRC, there were not just a few hereon who thought this would never happen. The Senate already passed its version, and the committee draft is pretty far along, as I understand.

You can see how your Representative voted here.

My only observation is that there are a whole lot of Times New Roman names in the "Ayes" vote, and a whole lot of italicized names in the "Noes".

Times New Roman is Republican; Italics is Democrat.

Draw your own conclusions.

JP

[legion]

Can you post the text of the bill? Or at least a summary?

[Overpaid Slacker]

Legion -

How 'bout both?

Enjoy.

JP

[Rodeo]

I heard Common Cause and other watchdog groups saying on the radio last night that the bill was laughable ... nøt even a hint of a shadow of what it started out to be.

No gift restrictions, no travel restrictions, none of the lobying reform that is so badly needed.

I have not looked at the details, but it sounds like they are playing us for fools again.

[legion]

While I think it is a good start, the loophole I see is that lists of earmarks will not be put on bills, and no one will raise a point of order (whatever that is).

Business will continue as usual.

[Rodeo]

Yep, they insulted us again. It'll probably work

A snip from today's Washington Post:

The rule change shelves a wider ethics bill, however, at least until next year. That bill became bogged down amid disagreements between the House and the Senate, and the reluctance of lawmakers from both parties to limit their interactions with lobbyists. The earmarks measure was brought up as a passable way to address voter unrest over the scandals, aides said.

"This bill represents the death of lobby reform," said Rep. David R. Obey (D-Wis.), a former chairman of the House Appropriations Committee.

The Senate is working on its own change in earmarks rules, which its leaders also hope to approve in lieu of broad ethics legislation this year, top staffers said. The staffers added that subjecting earmarks to more sunshine will allow lawmakers to tell their constituents that they addressed their ethics concerns even though the broad overhaul bill failed.

The larger ethics effort began with fanfare in January, prompted by a series of congressional scandals that started with the guilty plea of former lobbyist Jack Abramoff on fraud and conspiracy charges.

The ethics bill faltered, however, after being gradually diluted, at least compared with the initial promises made by congressional leaders. House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), for example, advanced a plan that would have prohibited lawmakers from accepting privately funded travel. But lawmakers rejected that provision along with many others that would have restricted lobbyists or would have done more than improve disclosure about lobbyists' encounters with Congress.

[Overpaid Slacker]

Rodeo -
I hadn't heard that, and I've been following this with some interest for a while. I will, however, look into it. For my own edification if nothing else.

I appreciate your skepticism, especially after the Bill of Goods McCain-Feingold was, and the unquestioning zeal with which many people swallowed it.

My own skepticism inclines me to believe that this is yet another ex post facto let's-throw-this-at-the-wall-and-see-if-it-sticks excuse for Dems' failure to vote for this legislation. Like the "justification" for a Dem Senator putting a secret hold on the Senate's bill ... because, um..., uh..., er... "the issue needed to be discussed more." But it was important that nobody know that I'm the one that feels so adamantly about this. So I'm using a technical mechanism cloaked in secrecy to express my desire for more public disclosure. yeah.

Even if you're only getting the moon, and not the sun, moon and stars, why vote against it? You seldom get everything in one (let alone on the first) shot.


JP

[Rodeo]

Your inclination is that it's a "Dem dirty trick?"

How surprising We all know the repubs can't anything done on the hill, having majorities in both houses.

By the way, Ted Stevens (R) and Bob Bird (D) BOTH put holds on that bill.

In other news, Bob Ney (R-Oh) plead guilty to corruption charges today.

[Overpaid Slacker]

No, not at all a dirty trick. I've drawn my conclusions about the vast marjority of R's voting FOR the House bill and the vast majority of D's voitng AGAINST the House bill.

The "story" around this bill seems to be spinning into a "well, it's not the whole package"... as though that were some kind of reason not to vote for transparency and accountability.

OK, it's not lobbyists and travel, but this bill wasn't intended to be; and it is something. Something the Senate has already addressed and passed (the WaPo's comment on Senate considering these earmark issues doesn't make any sense to me).

This is not an unusual D refrain, mind you. "If it doesn't solve everyone's problems all the time, it's a failure." Though that's an unkind characterization of the attitude, it's pretty close.

How this is the "Death of Ethics reform" mystifies me a bit, until I factor in that it's a D comment, published in the WaPo. In no way, shape or form is it the "death" of reform, it's a step in the reform. But, slander and deride it b/c D's voted largely against it, and there are plenty of people out there who'll just go on ahead and believe you.

How is Dollar Bill Jefferson (D-La) doing? I don't remember R's circling the wagons around Ney, or, to any real extent, Abramoff. Both scumbags. But they aren't alleged to have put emergency relief assets to work during an actual emergency in order to rescue swag. So they've got someone they can look down on.

JP

[Superman]

Identifying pork is subjective. There is no obvious earmark.

The one change that would do the most good is simple, and both sides of the aisle would oppose it because it would end the game-playing. Simply require that the content of a bill be limited to the topic of its title. Our State Legislature is like that. The bill has to be limited to its topic. So, if the bill is called "An Act related to requiring welfare recipients to submit to random drug tests," then it would not be possible to add a provision prohibiting the supply of condoms to minors.

The mudslinging has started here, and one of the common forms is to tell the public one of the provisions in a bill your opponent voted "no" on. Pretending that this reasonable provision was opposed by them. In reality it is always some other "poison pill" provision that caused the "no" vote. Make them deal with issues one at a time, instead of sneaking pork into bills that have "legs."

[MichiganMat]

Sounds like the Left is finally "Standing For Something", you know, that thing the Right as been accusing the Left of not being able to do all these years.

When the GOP guts a decent bill until its a farce of its original self to protect their culture of corruption, I personally think its a good idea to call it what it is and not support it. Now that may not be "productive", but its certainly better than rolling over.

God, I can't wait until the GOP Congress is fired and put out on the street.

edit: Didn't like the tone of the orig post. Its Friday, I need to lighten up.

[Seahawk]

What am I missing, is this progress or not?

What were the "noes" against, exactly?

[Superman]

Originally posted by Seahawk
What am I missing, is this progress or not?

What were the "noes" against, exactly?

That's the problem. To know the answer to this question, you have to at least read the WHOLE bill. It might have a provision in there that requires Democrat legislators to submit to random drug tests.

[Seahawk]

Originally posted by Superman
That's the problem. To know the answer to this question, you have to at least read the WHOLE bill. It might have a provision in there that requires Democrat legislators to submit to random drug tests.

No issue...I'll go find it. You hit a nerve, though: an anti-rider bill may have riders!?!

I am against ALL budget riders, BTW, regardless of the political sponsor.

[Overpaid Slacker]

Originally posted by Seahawk
I am against ALL budget riders, BTW, regardless of the political sponsor.

As am I. Across the board, regardless of political stripe. Whether it's bridges to nowhere or grants for the use of feces in "art" in Brooklyn.

ATEOTD, more of the issues that R's put forward will pass if put to public referendum (abortion would fail a national vote*, e.g.) and more of the hot button D issues wouldn't (witness the use of the courts to "legislate" policies that would never pass an elected legislature).

* FWIW, I'm all for abortion. I think it should be subsidized. We need way fewer people around here, and the Roe Effect appears to be working; to wit more liberals have abortions, so there are fewer of them around. Everybody wins!!!

JP

[Dantilla]

Originally posted by Superman
Simply require that the content of a bill be limited to the topic of its title.

+1.

[RoninLB]

Eliminate earmarks completely and in short order the beltway will have to spend responsibly.

This issue creates as much political beltway hacking as campaign spending reform.

Eliminate earmarks and hacked redistricting and the Legislature will be forced to succumb to the voter.

[artplumber]

Originally posted by Overpaid Slacker
.....
The "story" around this bill seems to be spinning into a "well, it's not the whole package"... as though that were some kind of reason not to vote for transparency and accountability.

....

How this is the "Death of Ethics reform" mystifies me a bit, until I factor in that it's a D comment, published in the WaPo. In no way, shape or form is it the "death" of reform, it's a step in the reform. But, slander and deride it b/c D's voted largely against it, and there are plenty of people out there who'll just go on ahead and believe you.

Yah, what happened to "1/2 a loaf is better than no loaf at all"?

[RoninLB]

the gangster policy of the whole beltway, aka Legislature, is hustling the voters again. The system is so dysfunctional to begin with that most voters follow their crap without understanding what they're doing. Their biggest scam is when they manipulate social policy to affect their war policy.

I'm not sure if that gov't monopoly grabs more than that other gov't monopoly that's called public school teachers ?

Eliminate earmarks 100% and end their dysfunctional redistricting and much legislative moral felonies will be reformed imo. Then hopefully the voter will have more power to affect social policy instead of fringe groups hustling in the judiciary. The judiciary is where the lowest of the low gravitate. Power to the People.