Tea Party Caucus Members Were For Earmarks Before They Were Against Them

You mean they’re hypocrites? Color me shocked. Just be sure to color me white so Bachmann will notice.

“You mean they’re hypocrites? Color me shocked. Just be sure to color me white so Bachmann will notice.”
.
Who Still Love PORK the Most?
.
Democrats of Course.
.
Two days ago the Senate voted to ban Earmarks for 3 years.
.
Only 7 out of 59 Democrats voted against earmarks.
.
33 out of 41 Republicans voted against earmarks
.
And you want to make an issue about the 8 Republicans who are against a 3 year freeze but most of which will vote for the 2 year freeze when almost all Democrats voted for Earmarks? Get real.
.
Alex no matter how hard you try to spin this story, you have again proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you are an Ideologue. No balance here.

Breaking. Time Mag’s blogger gets a clue.

David Williams, vice president for policy at Citizens Against Government Waste. “There’s going to be a huge backlash if they continue to request earmarks.”
-
LOL.
-
Remember how much conservatives cared about the deficit when Bush Jr. was president? That’s how much they’ll care about earmarks by the time the next election rolls around.
-
The GOP knows that it doesn’t have to deliver a single policy result to the Tea Party base, because they don’t have policy views, they have a series of resentments. At the center of them all is their hatred of liberals. They turned out huge for Dick “Deficits Don’t Matter” Cheney, and they’ll keep on doing so, regardless of what the Republican Party actually does. Cheney was right– deficits don’t matter, to Republicans.

As soon as you call out a republican for being a hypocrite, you’re an Ideologue, but if its a dem you’re a “Real American”
·
Makes you want to smile, doesn’t it?

OK, you win. Our guys are worse than your guys. Your guys are the less rotten of the two piles of rotting garbage. Savor that little moral victory.
.
/me rolls eyes.

gumOnShoes,
.
Does the truth/facts hurt?
.
You should try using real and complete facts on your comments sometime. Who knows you might find it refreshing.

Yeah, let’s please keep the arguments along the substantive “my guys are marginally less hypocritical than your guys” lines. You know, keep it high brow and classy…

Cute headline.
.
What was the context for that? Oh yeah, Kerry wanted to actually pay for the supplemental rather than add 87 billion to the debt.
.
Ironic.

Izzy, to the contrary!
·
I wrap myself in truthiness, absolutely! It is you who has a fondness for incomplete facts.
·
I know, because it sounds truthy to me, and what I know is good enough. Obviously.
·
Go take your un-American lies and slander somewhere else. I’m appalled. Literally and figuratively, and sometimes imaginarily. I’m so appalled, I’m making up words like Shakespeare. o_O
·
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -
·
Truthiness aside, the relative size of earmarks to the entire yearly debt accrual is minuscule. Its at most $67 billion a year, and that’s a lot, but most estimates place it closer to $18 billion a year, and in a debt that’s 100s of billions of dollars, earmarks don’t seem that large.
·
Going further, earmarks are mostly lawmakers telling agencies where to direct already granted funds. So, cutting earmarks doesn’t actually reduce the debt, it just puts power back into the hands of the agencies as to how they spend that money.
·
While eliminating some earmarks might be beneficial, it is not clear that it would 1) reduce the debt or 2) benefit the citizenry of the united states much.
·
Where there are excesses, they should be curbed, but becoming fixated on earmarks is choosing to ignore the real problems.
·
Additionally, cutting government spending right now is likely to hurt the economy more than doing it after the economy has recovered. This might not be the best time to remove yet another source of demand from a weak economy.
·
So, while I agree some earmarks are bad, not all of them are actually evil incarnate as you seem to assume they are. Nor, even if they are entirely evil, do they actually increase the budget that much. You ever see the movie The Prestige? Earmarks are the slight of hand trick to keep you from paying attention to where the real debt is coming from: Over priced health care & “defense” spending.
·
But, you’re welcome to your half truths Izzy. In fact, I doubt I could ever separate you from them.

So districts represented by Republicans received subsidies which shows what? They have a large group of farmers in their district. Stop the presses.
.
I am unsure how the subsidy works but I think it is based on some calculation that a bureaucrat created. So I suppose it is legal. And I am at a loss as to how this differs in degree of hypocrisy than say Warren Buffett calling for higher taxes after he has used every tax loophole he could find.

I guess it just depends with what hypocrite you agree. Bachmann’s family may still run the arm without subsidies but Buffet’s money is safely locked up from higher taxes.

Ted Turner is another one calling for higher taxes as he took all the farm subsidies he could carry and lock up his money as well.

But Bachmann is the hypocrite

Inconsistencies are expected: “earmarks” is meant to fit on a bumper-sticker; not to fit reality.

So what you are arguing is that its not corporate interests but anyone with their hand out that can, will and have corrupted our system. And as long as those avenues are available you will have a corrupt monied system.

You can’t argue against corruption and be for all the graft that is provides. And that is reality.

izzy,
.
They vote against earmarks then argue about what one is.
.
Cut the crap will you?

“These guys are hypocrites also,” so logically “Bachmann is the hypocrite” is untrue.
·
You see the problem right? Bachmann is the one complaining about spending. Yet, Bachmann’s family takes government money. Even if everyone else in the united states was a hypocrite, it wouldn’t mean Bachmann wasn’t too.
·
You can’t avoid it by saying they are too! Especially when her podium is based on what her hypocritical nature revolves around.

“Over priced health care & “defense” spending.”
.

I love how the left argues its always defense and now health care. Let’s keep in mind that defense is actually a federal obligation as defined by the constitution where I have trouble seeing where subsidies are. And how much of the health care is related to federal and state mandates or legal.

And of course in the ignornace is bliss category, the left never seems to account for what will we do with all the unemployed in HC and Defense when they get cut. To them defense is DIck Cheney and Halliburton with no other faces or people. No wonder Dick Cheney has a heart problem; running all over the globe designing , building equipping, fighting to fulfill our defense plans along with an empty corporation that only has profits in it- no employees. The left argues that handing over the auto companies to the unions save millions of jobs but somehow that logic doesn’t apply to industries they want to destroy (oil, gas and coal coming to a ghost town near you). And what about all that talk about wage stagnation for the middle class. Or right we will all be saved by alternate fuel in 30 years. I wonder how much it will add to the deficit to carry 20% unemployment rate on benefits for 30 years?
.

The logic of the left is laughable and the “truth” is usually their truth. The biggest lie continues to be to themselves.

You’re right Freep, cutting the budget cuts jobs. Which is why I’m not for it right now. But if you really think you can fix the government debt problem with out addressing 1) an ailing economy and 2) the two largest sources of debt in this country; then you are crazy.
·
Earmarks are a distraction, which is what us “crazy liberals” have been saying for four years.
·
The partially failed attempt at health care reform was initially supposed to address the cost of doing business so that we’d all be spending less money on health care AND so that the government programs would cost less over time. Yes, everyone having health care is a wonderful thing, but we tried to fix it because it was broken.
·
This is what it always comes down to. The “fiscal conservatives” whine really loudly about the debt, but then they can’t point out what should be cut and come up with anything substantial.
·
And the public hears the loudest voice and just assumes it to be truthy.

“You can’t avoid it by saying they are too!”
.
No but I could take the Demos tact and just avoid it all together and then just whine about the Republicans (sound familiar check your posts).

You had Al Gore bashing tobacco but he kept collecting money for raising tobacco (and farm subsidies too), or Geithner telling the rich should pay their fair share and he commits a felony by not paying his.
.
So is it better to have collected farm subsidies and call for an end to them or collect them and call on someone else to pay more money so that you could still collect them like Ted Turner

The logic of the left is laughable and the “truth” is usually their truth. The biggest lie continues to be to themselves.
.
You are 1000% right FreeInPa (I love that handle!)!
.
What the liberal Lamestream Media doesn’t get is that The Tea Party isn’t taking any money as so-called ‘earmarks’. That’s the Lamestream Media’s spin on it.
.
The Tea Party is returning the money to the hard working tax-payers whom the government stole the money from in the first place! Not handing it out to undeserving non-tax paying slackers like the Dimowits always do! Leave it to the libtards in the media to characterize that as hypocrisy. Silly liberals.

Again, FreeInPa shows how much smarter conservatives are than libtards!
.
Until the Dimowits are as pure as the driven snow, free of all corruption, and devoid of outside influence, the Lamestream Media and the libtards who run it have no right to accuse the Republicans of any wrong doing what so ever!
.
Matthew 7.3
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
.
See? The Bible knows that libtards are wrong, too!

No. I argue that “earmarks” as an issue is a non-starter.
.
The dollar amounts are relatively small and have already been appropriated- eliminating them won’t eliminate the spending. Also, earmarked programs can be necessary and beneficial; I’m not sure that we want to eliminate this option. Corruption and graft certainly exist but will likely be minimized through better transparency– I suspect that if earmarks are eliminated and money is dolled out via agencies, the process becomes less transparent as allocations will be decided within the bureaucracy.
.
Moreover, advocates know that eliminating earmarks will have virtually no impact on our debt. It is campaign fodder appropriate for bumper-stickers and sound bytes.

This week Bachmann has denounced Congress’ $1.2 billion settlement with black farmers as “scamming the federal taxpayers.”

Only in the Bizzaro universe of right-wing faux outrage do we get Bachmann denouncing a discrimination settlement as a ‘scam’ when the plaintiffs were denied the same sort of access to subsidies that her own family enjoys.

Then again, Bachmann is so stupid that she wouldn’t understand her own hypocrisy if you explained it to her slowly while using single syllable words and stick figure drawings.

A post script.
.
I realized that after I wrote “eliminating earmarks will have virtually no impact on our debt” I was making an assumption. So I decided to look into it a bit.
.
Citizens Against Govt Waste puts total earmark spending (as opposed to requests shown above) for 2010 at $16.5 billion (link). What I found most interesting was this:
.
Much has been made of reforms that require members of Congress to identify earmarks they request and the intended recipients of earmark funds, but CAGW uncovered 81 earmarks worth $6.5 billion that were funded in circumvention of Congress’s own transparency rules. These stealth earmarks were particularly prevalent in the 2010 Defense Appropriations Act, which included 35 anonymous earmarks worth $6 billion, a staggering 59 percent of the earmarked tax dollars.
.
That is where we should focus ($6B is a small amount relative to the debt, but important none the less). Again, I’m not convinced that the entire process of appropriations and earmarking be eliminated, but I am convinced that members of Congress that circumvent transparency rules be held accountable.
.
I still suspect that eliminating earmarks may eliminate transparency safeguards making the process more likely to be corrupted. If anyone knows for sure, please say so.

Someone help me out here, am I becoming desnsitized to the right wing rhetoric on this site or is is “TheRealestAmerican” a perfect example of Poe’s Law?

The wonderfully accurate conservapedia (as opposed to liberal ‘fact’ infested ‘weak’ipdeia) defines Poe’s law as “attempt at effective liberal internet satire”.
.
As a Real American, I have no time for such trivial frivolities. Besides, liberals self-satirize.

He’s treading the Poe line. For those of us familiar with his posting history its possible to make the distinction, though it took me a read or two to get it through my head. If you’d never been to this blog before, and you didn’t pick up on the hyperbole you might miss it.
·
But yes, there are moments where what is being written does not seem so far off from what might have been written by someone who was being serious. And that makes it tragically funny.

“Only in the Bizzaro universe of right-wing faux outrage do we get Bachmann denouncing a discrimination settlement as a ‘scam’ when the plaintiffs were denied the same sort of access to subsidies that her own family enjoys.”
.
Or could it be because there were about 36,000 black farmers at the time but there are now 94,000 claimants. And because there is never any fraud when the government is handing out money in the land of liberal delusions.

.

Sorry but the “amounts are small” is a numbskull argument. Add up all the inefficient spending and fraud and you start talking real money

Welcome therealistamerican.

Sadly, it doesn’t seem to far off from what we’ve come to expect, I suppose. This was the first post I’d read of his, but with a few more I was able to get a handle on it. I look forward to seeing the response of those who are “more serious” as well. Perhaps I’ll make some popcorn…

Sorry but there is $16.5 billion to start with. Approx $10 billion is transparent and reviewable- and to me, this is acceptable. $6.5 billion is in question.
.
The numbskull argument is that you can accomplish anything by kicking that amount back to the agencies.
.
A bigger numbskull argument is that it is fiscally prudent to attack earmarks while approving of a trillion dollar defense budget (link).
.
If you want to cut wasteful spending, as we all do, go to its biggest source. And spare us the campaign-speak.

One could argue that nearly every agenda budget is an earmark. Since the left loves the idea of sun setting tax cuts why don’t we sunset agencies. Every couple of years they must stand up to be voted again with complete review of accomplishments and how every dollar was spent.

Since the left loves the idea of sun setting tax cuts

Because it was democrats who specifically set up these tax cuts to expire right now, right? Because the democrats are purposefully blocking legislation unless they get what they want? Because it’d be a shame if people making over $250k had to pay Clinton-era taxes on their gross income over $250k?
.
Since fiscal conservatives love to solve everything with tax cuts…

Sorry, typo. Should be:
.
Since “fiscal conservatives“…

why don’t we sunset agencies. Every couple of years they must stand up to be voted again with complete review of accomplishments and how every dollar was spent.
.
Fine with me. Anything that limits cronyism and pay-for-play, I’m for it.
.
If you want to argue that the Fed should not appropriate money to the states for special projects, be my guest. I think you’d agree that, in many cases, this money is vital to the communities in question- but it’s the influence peddling that bothers you, and me. That is why the CAGW is great- make the pols explain themselves and be accountable.
.
I’d be supportive if the “eliminate earmarks” crowd was fighting for transparency, but they’re not. Bottom line, I don’t believe that eliminating them will have the effect that advocates claim, and I feel they know it. Eliminating earmarks won’t change the amount of money appropriated to the states, it won’t reduce the deficit. I’m concerned that putting allocations in the agencies’ hands will make the committee heads more influential as they get to dispense favors from their little fiefdoms -perhaps without congressional safeguards.
.
But pounding the table against earmarks will get you face-time on popular TV shows. That is the goal here.

Who voted for Buffet and Turner? And did they campaign against earmarks, like crazy-eyes?