A new analysis by a group of federal-spending watchdogs shows a striking imbalance between the parties when it comes to earmark requests. Democrats remain raging spenders, while Republicans have made enormous strides in cleaning up their act. In the Senate, the GOP made only one-third as many earmark requests as Democrats for 2011, and in the House, Republicans have nearly given up earmarking altogether — while Democrats roll on.Republican Senators didn't behave so honorably, but, still the overall result is very good. Another win for the Tea Party: though out of power in the White House and both Houses of Congress, fiscal conservatives were able to impose their will on the ultra liberals (as in liberal with taxpayer money) that currently theoretically control our government. Let's hope Republicans can step it up to the next level in the next Congress. They better, or else!
The watchdog groups — Taxpayers for Common Sense, WashingtonWatch.com, and Taxpayers Against Earmarks — counted total earmark requests in the 2011 budget. Those requests were made by lawmakers earlier this year, but Democratic leaders, afraid that their party’s spending priorities might cost them at the polls, decided not to pass a budget before the Nov. 2 elections. This week, they distilled those earmark requests — threw some out, combined others — into the omnibus bill that was under consideration in the Senate until Majority Leader Harry Reid pulled it Thursday night. While that bill was loaded with spending, looking back at the original earmark requests tells us a lot about the spending inclinations of both parties.
In the 2011 House budget, the groups found that House Democrats requested 18,189 earmarks, which would cost the taxpayers a total of $51.7 billion, while House Republicans requested just 241 earmarks, for a total of $1 billion.
Where did those GOP earmark requests come from? Just four Republican lawmakers: South Carolina Rep. Henry Brown, who did not run for re-election this year; Louisiana Rep. Joseph Cao, who lost his bid for re-election; maverick Texas Rep. Ron Paul; and spending king Rep. Don Young of Alaska. The other Republican members of the House — 174 of them — requested a total of zero earmarks.
Friday, December 17, 2010
Federal Budget Update
No time for much talking, just a quick note that fiscal conservatives won a very good (but not great) victory in the big budget battle that just was resolved. From the Washington Examiner via Hot Air
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I read about the bill Fox news. This stuff is sort of confusing to me and its hard for me to really understand the economics of it all. So many things affect so many other things in so many ways.
ReplyDeleteI don't support the earmark ( i think thats the right word for it) to lengthen unemployment benefits.
From what I understand, most of the bill is basically tax cuts and I support that. I think we need to start eliminating government programs though to offset the tax cuts. NPR would be a start, though its probably a very small fraction of the problem with government spending.
I am not exactly sure as to what is in this bill. There has been a lot of confusion with this bill. Did the earmarks for the corn ethanol make it? This bill contains a lot of unnecessary stuff in it. And the bill should never have taken this long to pass, it should have been passed a lot earlier in the year instead of waiting until the last moment. The Left did this for the purpose of creating a crisis so that they could jam a lot of stuff they wanted in it. Also the current tax rates are not made permanent. This will create some uncertainity for business.
ReplyDeleteAlso this bill was labeled as a tax cut when in fact it just kept the current tax rates the same. So allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire would have been a tax increase and not a tax cut. Although there are some tax cuts in the bill like social security tax cuts.
I think it lowered the social security tax though.
ReplyDelete"Workers' Social Security taxes would be cut by nearly a third, going from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent, for 2011."-Fox news
I read that Obama would be pressured to keep the cuts moving or make them permanent if he wants re election.
The ethanol did make it. That's one of the things that's not good. But, I'm not sure whether that was an earmark or not or an above-the-board, approved project. Still, not a good thing that it passed.
ReplyDeleteYes, the only real tax cut is the Social Security reduction. It's maintaining the status quo, but that is better than letting it expire. Also, Republicans, particularly in the House, really restrained themselves on earmarks.
I disagree with you Jeff. The crisis was the omnibus bill that Sen Reid tried to cram through and got shot down. This is a continuing resolution, with no additional pork, that will be re-evaluated in the next Congress soon. The crisis is on liberals who now have to justify everything in the teeth of the new Tea Party nation. This is a good thing. Moment is going our way.
This bill did have about 350 billion dollars of extra stuff but that is better than what was being proposed. I did not know that the separate spending bill was defeated.
ReplyDeleteI heard Charles Krauthammer state that this bill will increase the national debt by 1 trillion dollars. He also states that this was a big victory for Obama and he is coming back from his defeat in Nov. http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/557083/201012161852/Comeback-Kid-Obama-Leaves-Clinton-In-Dust.htm
It looks like DADT will be repealed.
ReplyDeleteWhere I am at in my life, I support the repeal of this policy. I am trying to be a christian and so I know that homosexuality is a sin (Leviticus 18:22 among other versus), but sin alone is not reason enough to discriminate. If we discriminated based on sin then everyone would be screwed.
ReplyDeleteGays can shoot a gun or do supply inventory just the same as anyone else. I do fear that they might find some danger when being openly gay in an all male infantry company. I grudgingly support this repeal.
I'm still not solid on my stance on DADT. My opinion is in fluctuation. When I look at this issue alone I support its appeal. When I apply all the cultural implications then I don't really like it.
ReplyDeleteGays serving in the military was inevitable. This is probably the best way for it to happen as opposed to a court rulling. Whenever a society's morals decline, the fall of that society is not far behind. Morality is necessary for a free nation. This is at the very core of our nation's problems. The Bible said that this would happen anyways and is not new. Those advancing homosexual rights are doing it to undermine the foundations of our society. They are using gays emotions to get them to help destory our nation.
ReplyDeleteFrom the military perspective, the homosexual lifestyle is in conflict with military service. If my religion says I can't eat pork, then I can serve in the military. How are normal people and homosexuals supposed to share living quarters and take communal showers together? There will be some major conflict. Male on male sexual harassment is the most prevelant in the military right now. Straight people will be forced to accept the homosexual life style. If I am the EO rep, I will have to give classes stating that homosexuality is ok and we can't "discriminate" against them. SNCOs will not be likely to handle harassment by homosexuals for fear of being labeled a homo phobe and loose his 20 years. If I am in a shower with a gay guy and he is leering at me or touches me, what am I to do? Go tell Gunny. He will say where is the proof? I got 4 years left. I ain't gona be labeled a homo phobe. I can't do anything about it. This will necessitate physical confortation. In my case a loaded weapon. This is a big mess waiting to happen. Even a Colonel said this and the current Marine Corps Commandant. Also have you dealt with a homosexual that flaunts it and throws it in your face?
Well other nations allow gays to serve. Well those nations are basically done culturally and economically. And their military isn't the best.
Overall, this is excepted. But we should be aware that it is just another step, one of many, towards the downfall of our civilization. So, uh, take note and enjoy.
Your discrimination argument has been made before and I fully agree with it. This homosexual issue is different though. If homosexuals pose no danger then why discriminate?
ReplyDeleteIf a straight person touches me in the shower I can beat his ass. Same with a gay.(we took group showers in boot camp alone. We never had to deal with it again. There was never a chance to look at others in boot camp or do anything about it)
""But sin alone is not reason enough to discriminate" that shows that you are screwed up in the head." You make outlandish accusations. This kind of language reminds me of a homosexual who gets frustrated and starts spurting off insults.Try having a civil discussion.
How does this make me screwed up in the head? Homos giving eachother STD's should be promoted for human prosperity. They are predominately liberal and if they kill eachother off then they are lowering their gene pool. This thesis supports your whole argument supporting discrimination for the preservation of the human race. We should encourage rampant unprotected sex among gays.
And like I said, I'm not strong on my stance either way. I'm still in deep meditation about this. Maybe they should make exceptions and not allow gays in combat arms.
These comments have veered way off-topic!
ReplyDeleteHow 'bout a DADT post?
I might be acting so pro gay because I just got done with a discussion with Jake and some queers about McVety and his stance against a bill that would introduce homosexuality being OK in the Canadian education system. Maybe they rubbed off on me (not literally).
ReplyDeleteWe should be able to discriminate. But why discriminate unreasonably? I'm not convinced gays will impact the military as much as you think. I do think they have a detestable lifestyle. If they do anything that is wrong then they will be punished like everyone else. I'm not afraid of them. I'm a man and can defend myself if I'm harrassed. If a straight man touched me and I punch him I would have the same guilt (or lack of guilt) as if it were a gay man.
ReplyDeleteMaybe you are afraid that people will not act as professionals. Unprofessional people get weeded out in combat arms. There is less drama. I doubt you or the gay person would give a damn about sexual preference in a fire fight.
I guess in Korea we showered together. Iraq we didnt.