Quick Hits: A new Congress gets underway

Kari Chisholm FacebookTwitterWebsite

A bunch of notes from the nation's capital:

Ain't it nice to think that we can actually move progressive legislation on all these fronts - and know that George Bush and Dick Cheney won't be standing in the way?

Oh, and one more, from the other side of the aisle:

Unbelievable.

  • (Show?)

    Full disclosure: My company manages the campaign websites for Blumenauer, Wyden, and Merkley - but I speak only for myself.

  • (Show?)

    All good news and efforts, and to be recognized a such. Passing a health care bill would be a monumental achievement. But the Democrats have a simple piece of governing party business to enact as a new session starts. They should entirely prohibit the use of earmarks. Earmarks are not a good way to budget the public money. They are a temptation to corruption, to selling funded projects for campaign contributions. Democrats should clean the process up now before it bites them in the backside.

  • (Show?)

    Dave, I take your point about the temptation toward public corruption - but earmarks are also a useful way for members of the legislative branch to direct money, especially in the face of an unfriendly executive branch.

    They're also a fairly tiny chunk of money in comparison to the entire budget.

  • (Show?)

    Kari, continuing earmarks is just bad politics. It is not the "change" most people voted for. There will be scandals and the Democrats will have to take the blame for the process that permitted them. Best to take the high, right ground now.

    If we are going to continue the process, could we at least have a hearing on the proposed earmark in the state or congressional district of any proposed earmark. We need even more transparency and an opportunity to voice alternative priorities at the state or congressional district level. Right now the process is pure pork barrel politics.

  • tom Vail (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Dave is right. Earmarks are wrong.

    Kari, saying "They're also a fairly tiny chunk of money in comparison to the entire budget," is much like saying "I am only a prostitute on weekends."

  • Orowhn (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Concerning Walden, nobody ever said he was smart, they said he was "nice." Maybe they would like to have a beer with him.

  • (Show?)

    No, Tom, it's like saying that the house is on fire, but you're worrying about whether someone put the cap back on the toothpaste tube.

    Yes, the ABUSE of earmarking is problematic - but used correctly they are a reasonable response to a nonresponsive executive. We shouldn't be surprised to find that Congress is reluctant to completely hand over that much power to the executive.

  • tom Vail (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I appreciate your viewpoint, Kari. This is definitely a political tool used for political means. If you choose to believe that Congress should retain this tool, that is your choice.

    I personally see it as an abuse of power. It is not only used to control the Executive, but, to force members to vote for things for which they would not vote and which can be used against them in sleazy campaigns.

    I think your analogy about the fire and toothpaste is, at best, off the mark. It is not in the least bit analogous to the earmark situation. Worrying about a trivial matter when important events should be your focus is not the same as being sneaky and dishonest by using a significant piece of legislation in your favor.

    Do you truly mean to say that getting rid of earmarks is not the sort of "Change" for which America voted?

    I still believe Dave is right and that doing away with earmarks would instantly raise approval ratings of Congress dramatically.

  • (Show?)

    Fair enough, Tom. We have a difference of opinion as to the utility of the earmarking process. You think they're terrible/awful/evil, and I think they're mildly unpleasant, sometimes abused, but occasionally worthwhile.

    Do you truly mean to say that getting rid of earmarks is not the sort of "Change" for which America voted?

    Maybe in a broad-scope kind of way - Obama is for transparency, post-partisanship, and competent and effective government. If you think earmarks are always inconsistent with those principles, then you may have a point. (I happen to think that reasonable earmarking can co-exist with those principles.)

    But there was exactly one presidential candidate who made earmark reform a centerpiece of his campaign - and that guy lost.

  • (Show?)

    Regarding earmarks, and as an example, in the OMB Report on FY 2008, there were 11 earmarks totaling $3,392,000 for Department of Education related projects in Oregon (see here). They range from $95,000 to Springfield Public School District for an Academy of Arts and Academics to $540,000 to Chemeketa Community College for equipment for health service education and training. None seem bad or silly. None seem to have overtones of corruption that I can spot. But why these 11 projects? Why does not the state fund them? And, if they are not important enough for the state to fund, why should the national government pay for them? Why could they not be funded through existing funded programs administered, yes, by the Executive Department’s agencies. And finally, what process selected these 11 projects as Oregon’s top educational priorities for 2008 (given that I’d have some different ones, like developing Mandarin and study abroad programs, and other folks still other priorities)?

    They just do not seem to come from a budgeting process the public can have much confidence in.

  • Tom Vail (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Thanks, Kari.

    I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the issues and disagree without devolving into hatred and personal attacks.

    I'll concede your final point but think that it had little or nothing to do with why he lost.

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    With the overwhelming approval of Congress for the blitzkrieg on Gaza approved and promoted by Ehud Olmert-Milosevic and Tzipi Livni-Karadzic and the forces led by Ehud Barak-Mladic we can certainly look forward to the change Obama promised with the same faith some child going to bed tonight can anticipate the tooth fairy leaving something under his/her pillow for that lost tooth.

  • (Show?)

    I come down somewhere inbetween Kari and Tom with respect to earmarks.

    Not all earmarks are bad or scandalous or wasteful. Some are arguably worthy but misplaced (in an ethical legislative sense of "place").

    Rather than try to outright ban earmarks, it seems to me that the same basic service would be rendered by shining multiple levels of very bright spotlights on earmarks. IOW, let lawmakers do earmarks - under certain constraints - but force them to do so in the full light of day and with the onus on the individual lawmaker to inform their constituents.

    Maybe force them to publish their earmark requests in the paper of record in their district/state. Or maybe require them to dedicate a page on their official Senate websites to fully itemizing each and every earmark with highly visible links on the front page to the earmarks page. Or BOTH!

    There are any number of things that could be done to both put some reasonable brakes on the process and simultaneously shine a light on the specifics that would perhaps be more civically... constructive than an outright ban.

  • (Show?)

    BTW, I ment to leave a link to this: Earmark Watch.org

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Depends on the definition of earmark.

    After that Minn. bridge collapsed, I would see nothing wrong with the Minn. delegation pushing for federal funding to repair the bridge. Or all that Hatfield did to bring federal funding to projects in Oregon. As long as they say publicly, "Darned right my state needs this, and here is why!".

    That differs from the bridge to nowhere, the Vegas mob museum, or something else which benefits just a small well connected group of people and not the general good. (Yes, to my mind, fixing the Minn. bridge is the public good.)

    Trying to keep open a defense contractor which has been operating for many years (builds boats, repairs Humvees damaged in battle, etc.) does not strike me as scandalous as long as the process is open and above board--the member is just representing constituents.

    Trying to sell a Senate seat or the right to build a new factory in exchange for campaign contributions, however, is wrong.

  • (Show?)

    It's worth noting that the new Congress actually does mandate disclosure of earmarks.

    Not quite good enough -- each member will disclose in prose on their website, rather than a single searchable database... But disclosure is now underway.

  • KM (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Does anyone really believe anything these liars/grifters/creatures say? It is unbelievable to me how stupid and gullible people are. Change? Oh yeah, change from one form of corruption to another -- that's all you're going to get no matter who you elect at any level.

    Our society has become so dumbed-down and ignorant the lemmings among us can only parrot "progressive", "liberal", and "GREEN" mantras the scum in the media try to shove down our throats. Useful idiots the lot of them. It’s cool to be part of the crowd though, isn’t it?

    Anyone who supports letting botched abortion survivors die a horrific death in the back room of a clinic/hospital is THE LOWEST FORM OF LIFE! I will leave the final judgment on that between Obama and God.

    BHO is not my President, and I hope he fails miserably and catastrophically. As for Congress, well, they will pay for their sins one day too.

  • Ms Mel Harmon (unverified)
    (Show?)

    KM,

    <h2>I just made a donation to Planned Parenthood in your name (okay, initials). No need to thank me! :)</h2>

connect with blueoregon