Obey Announces Partial Ban on Earmarks

By GottaLaff

Is this another one of those "compromises"?

In an effort to hold off a total moratorium on earmarks, House appropriators announced Wednesday morning that they would reject all earmark requests that benefit for-profit companies.

Obey claims it will mean “1,000 fewer earmarks.” Nancy Pelosi has floated the idea of a total ban on earmarks. The GOP went for a yearlong ban.

Obey said he would hope that the policy would break the appearance of a link between campaign contributions and earmarks.

Here's the money line:

But, he said, “You will never break totally the appearance of a possibility of a nexus as long as the Congress doesn’t pass campaign finance reform legislation.”

Yeah, good luck with that.

Without effective campaign finance reform, true democracy is about as realistic as a birthday wish.

Get filled in on the details here.

This is what a Real News Story looks like: Shelby Relents and Releases Holds... sort of

By GottaLaff

A few days ago, I posted about Richard Shelby putting a hold on 70-- count 'em-- of President Obama's nominees, in essence shutting down what's left of the government.

That was then. This is now:

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) "has released his controversial 'holds' on more than 70 pending presidential nominations," the Washington Post reports.

"Senators, usually from the minority party, often use the legislative tactic on one or a few presidential nominees, usually to protest parochial concerns. Shelby's maneuver, aimed at all appointments awaiting confirmation on the Senate floor, agitated Democrats because it would effectively limit confirmation votes to a handful per month. It also marked a low point in a partisan standoff in the Senate that has forced Democrats to find 60 votes to pass almost everything."

"Senate Democratic aides confirmed that Shelby had released most holds, but Shelby said he would continue to block other, unnamed nominees."

This has not made news, surprisingly. And the news is that the GOP has obstructed every single thing the Democrats have tried to do, often with no rationale other than to... obstruct.

That's news.

But we're not hearing about it.

If this story were to be pushed as hard as the Big Countdown to Palin's crib-noted speech was, America might see the GOP differently than it does now. But it doesn't. It buries real news with anything and everything that will increase ratings, and therefore increase ad revenue.

And that, you see, is how the corporate owned news media negatively affects voters, elections, and our very democracy.

White House: Shelby’s Obstruction is a Threat To National Security

By GottaLaff

I posted earlier about Richard Shelby's jaw-dropping hostage-taking of 70 of President Obama nominees.

On the Thom Hartmann Show just now, I heard that Robert Gibbs is livid, justifiably so.

Now the White House is going for a twofer: Calling this a national security threat as well as obstruction:

Yesterday, just hours after the Senate voted 96-0 to confirm Martha Johnson as the Administrator of the GSA after a pointless 9-month delay, we learned that Sen. Richard Shelby from Alabama has placed a blanket hold on all nominees, including national security nominees, to use as leverage for some projects in his state. He's holding up 70 nominees, among them top intelligence officials at the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security. According to the National Journal, he’s holding them up until two defense contracts that would benefit interests in his state can be fast-tracked.

Let's be clear: Sen. Shelby is preventing qualified nominees who will help protect the American people from being confirmed. He’s not alone, though. This is just the latest example of this kind opposition for opposition’s sake that the President talked about earlier this week.. This strategy of obstruction is preventing qualified people from doing their jobs on behalf of the American people and it’s preventing real work from getting done in Washington. Every minute spent needlessly blocking noncontroversial nominees, many of whom go on to be confirmed by 70 or more votes or by voice vote (nine of the President’s nominees so far), is a minute not spent on the issues that matter to American families.

As I noted yesterday, this is true of the legislative process, too. The Senate cast more votes to break filibusters last year than in the entire 1950s and '60s combined, making it nearly impossible to come to agreement on key legislation.

Dan Pfeiffer is White House Communications Director

Make that a threefer: He threw in the F word: Filibuster.

More like this please.

Shelby Blocks All Obama Nominations In The Senate Over AL Earmarks

By GottaLaff

No, they're not the Obstruction Party at all. They're just doing what they feel is Right. Yeah... Far right:

According to the report, Shelby is holding Obama's nominees hostage until a pair of lucrative programs that would send billions in taxpayer dollars to his home state get back on track. The two programs Shelby wants to move forward or else:

- A $40 billion contract to build air-to-air refueling tankers. From CongressDaily: "Northrop/EADS team would build the planes in Mobile, Ala., but has threatened to pull out of the competition unless the Air Force makes changes to a draft request for proposals." Federal Times offers more details on the tanker deal, and also confirms its connection to the hold.

- An improvised explosive device testing lab for the FBI. From CongressDaily: "[Shelby] is frustrated that the Obama administration won't build" the center, which Shelby earmarked $45 million for in 2008. The center is due to be based "at the Army's Redstone Arsenal."

Confirmed:

Sen. Richard Shelby's (R-AL) office has confirmed to TPMDC the reports that Shelby has placed a hold on President Obama's nominees over a pair of government programs set to be based in Alabama. He did not confirm that Shelby has taken the rare step of blocking all of Obama's nominees, as was reported yesterday.

We have a hostage situation.

Brought to you by Earmarks, Inc.

Republicans: The party of earmarks

By GottaLaff

BuzzFlash traces the history of earmarks, and surprise! Guess which party gets the prize for the highest number. Hint: Sarah Palin, despite her protests, is a member of the winning party:

The reports of these earmarks, which actually take up small amounts of each spending bill, are limited in focus. You get the impression that earmarks have always happened. But it's not true.

This history from a 2006 article contains this choice bit of information:

Just take a look at the history of the Defense Appropriations Bill: Taxpayers for Common Sense calculated that the 1970 Defense Appropriations Bill had a dozen earmarks; the 1980 bill had 62 earmarks; and by 2005, the defense bill had skyrocketed to 2,671 earmarks.

And Paul Kane of The Washington Post noted in his paper's online political chat:

"... it's worth noting that the republic also lasted 200 years without earmarks making up much of the legislative talk. In the early '90s there were only about 500 earmarks, now there are more than 14,000 (down a few thousand from their hey-day in the middle of this decade)."

The Democratic Party was in control of the House of Representatives from 1954 to 1995. If Kane's assessment is accurate, the earmarks grew when Republicans took control of the House. They have certainly grown in recent years, and in the more than two years since the Democrats have been back in control, the earmarks' growth continues.

But even as Kane points out, the current earmark figure has been reduced from the last throes of Republican rule in the House.

This article from The New York Times from December 2007 points out the reduction under Democratic control:

The number of earmarks in the sweeping spending bill is actually a reduction from past years, although the exact amount is being debated. Taxpayers for Common Sense estimates a decline of about 25 percent.

The Rushpublicans finally win something. Most earmarks! Yay?

Palin's Peeved at Political Punch

By GottaLaff

(via)

In the news again. Poor Limelight Palin! Or should I say, Grabby McEarmark? This news cycle, it's Jake Tapper who got her all upset. Not being one to take sass like his lying down [Laffy Note to self: Forgo mother-of-five "lying down" jokes here], she sic'd her flunky on him, that's how mad she was. The truth hurts, doesn't it, Grabby?

A very irate aide to Gov. Sarah Palin contacted ABC News today to explain why his boss's 31 requests for earmarks in the fiscal year 2009 budget, totaling $197 million, represent a victory for fiscally conservative values.

"I am disturbed by this item," wrote Bill McAllister, director of communications for Gov. Palin, referencing a blog entry from last night in which we referred to an article in the liberal magazine Mother Jones noting that Palin -- after what seemed like a campaign against earmark abuse -- was back at the proverbial trough.

"The headline [link] doesn't seem very dignified for a major news organization,"said the spokesman for the governor who repeatedly referred to then-Senator, now-President Obama as "palling around with terrorists." He also quibbled with our referencing Mother Jones. (We also reference conservative publications here. But anyway.)

"Let's start with the overwhelming mischaracterization of Gov. Palin's stance on earmarks that has been repeated and repeated since Aug. 29," McAllister wrote. "The governor never said that earmarks should be abolished or that the State of Alaska wouldn't seek or accept any. Didn't happen. What she said well before she was a national candidate (going back at least to October of 2007) was that earmark reform was necessary and the state would need to rely less on federal money than it had been."

McAllister then pointed out that Palin made 51 earmark requests for the FY 2008 budget, totaling $256 million; and 31 requests totaling $197 million, for the FY 2009 budget.

McAllister said that for next year's budget, Gov. Palin will only make eight requests, totaling $69 million, which will include "six ongoing federal appropriations and just two new projects: an upgrade at the Kodiak Missile Defense Facility, which is relevant to national security, and a bridge replacement critical to construction of the pending Alaska natural gas pipeline, also in the national interest." [...]

"She has spoken out on reform of the federal process, and it is a disservice to her that her position was so egregiously mis-reported last year and that those same false stories are now being used to make her look like a hypocrite -- adding insult to injury, quite literally."

Alarmed, I asked McAllister how Palin was "literally" injured. Was she okay? Was she infirm?

"I didn't say physically injured," he wrote back. "Certainly her reputation was injured by the erroneous reporting." [...]

In any case, the point is, Gov. Palin as a vice presidential candidate claimed that she "championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending of Congress."

And yet, she has asked for and is still asking for -- and receiving -- tens millions of dollars in earmarks [...]

Including [...] moneys for alcohol bootlegging interdiction and North Pacific fisheries programs.

Yes, all that erroneous reporting is what's injuring what's left of her stellar reputation. It was nothing she's done, said (er, tried to say), or insinuated. Glad we cleared that up. It would be a shame if she began her 2012 campaign with any misunderstandings.

Big H/t: Mark Karlin at Buzzflash for the Palin photo link

Palin's Back to Lovin' Her Some Earmarks

Sarah Palin a hypocrite? I'm shocked.

After spending sigificant time and airspace bashing the earmark process as the running mate of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin requested an unspecified number of earmarks in the omnibus spending bill, Jonathan Stein and David Corn report at Mother Jones.

One hundred earmarks worth $144 million are headed for Alaska, Taxpayers for Common Sense says. That works out to $209.71 per state resident -- more money, per capita, than any other state.

"We have drastically, drastically reduced our earmark request since I came into office," Palin told ABC News' Charles Gibson last year after he pointed out that Alaska received $231 per person in earmarks in 2008.

"The abuse of earmarks, it's un-American, it's undemocratic, and it's not going to be accepted in a McCain-Palin administration," she said. "Earmark abuse will stop."

Senator Evan Bayh, Hypocrite of Indiana

Not so sure about calling him a Democrat any more. Now, I have no problem with sensible earmarks, but you don't do this kind of crap unless you're up to being criticized for it. More about the other hypocrites at the link, but I'm focused on Bayh.

Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh (D) opposed yesterday's $410 billion omnibus spending bill because it was "bloated" and included $7.7 billion in earmarks. “At a time when so many American families are tightening their belts to make ends meet, Congress should be as equally committed to living within its means," he said in a statement.

(snip)

But as it turns out, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense, Bayh had four solo earmarks attached to his name in the legislation, worth $2.7 million; McConnell had 36 totaling $51 million; and Inhofe had 34 earmarks worth $53 million.

Indeed, of the 35 U.S. senators who opposed the omnibus spending bill last night -- in the form of a "no" on the cloture vote -- 28 of them had solo earmarks in the legislation.

(snip)

When First Read asked Bayh's office why he opposed the legislation yet had earmarks in it, spokesman Eric Kleiman replied, "Bayh ranks 78th in total earmarks in the omnibus bill. He was also one of only two Dem senators to vote for the McCain amendment last week to strip all earmarks from the bill, even his own."

Kleiman added, "As the recession has deepened in the last year, Sen. Bayh believes Congress should show faith with the American people and demonstrate the federal government is capable of living within its means.**"

**How's that for a non-answer answer?

President Obama Discusses Earmarks and the Budget

Newspaper not thrilled with McCain's Tweet

By GottaLaff

Not ten minutes ago, I was reading Paddy some of John McCain's Tweets from my new Twitter toy, TweetDeck. I was telling her that his Tweets were an annoying series of isolated little pokes at various earmarks. Guess I was on to something. Here's the most recent one:

#8. $380,000 for a recreation and fairground area in Kotzebue, AK

That's what he does. He posts them exactly as you see above. And here is an example of why they irk some people:

A South Carolina newspaper isn’t too happy with what John McCain’s been Twittering.

McCain has been using the microblogging site to post a near-daily list of the “10 Porkiest projects” in the omnibus spending bill. On Wednesday, the Arizona senator posted “#6. $950,000 for a Convention Center in Myrtle Beach, SC.”

See what I mean?

The Myrtle Beach Sun News editorialized Friday that McCain is using the site “to make congressional earmarks a political wedge issue for the Republicans” by posting such earmarks without context.

The paper wrote that “readers of McCain's Convention Center tweet are now invited to think — without the inconvenience of critical reflection — that the Myrtle Beach Convention Center project has no value.”

The editorial argued instead that the convention center project has the potential to create long-term wealth and jobs in the coastal resort city.

The paper went on to say how ironic it was that the earmark was put into the bill by none other than Gramm-pa McCain's bff... Lindsey Graham.

Looks like Tweeter McCain laid an egg.

Claire McCaskill keeps her word

By GottaLaff

I'm sorry I missed most of this, but I caught the end of Claire McCaskill's remarks. She kept her word:

"Earmarks are clearly an equal opportunity activity. Don't take anyone seriously who says one thing and does another. That's the biggest sin of all. Any parent will tell you: The example you set is more important than anything you say. I yield the floor."

Earmark-up

By GottaLaff

Bottom line on earmarks, per Keith Olbermann on Countdown just now:

The amount of money spent on earmarks by either party is about even. So what's the beef? This:

It takes 57 Democrats to get the same number of earmarks as it takes...



... 40 Rushpublics*.

*If there's such a thing as the Democrat party, which there isn't, then there's such a thing as the Republic party. Or as we like to call them, the Rushpublics. (h/t: ZigoMandelbaum)

Bobby Jindal loves him the earmarks

By GottaLaff

Oh Ba-ba-ba-Bobby, Bobby, Bobby. What are we going to do with you? First, we discover your embarrassing public speaking issues, then we find out that you are not the transparent wunderkind some thought you were, and now... well, now this, from our pals at Buzzflash:

In fiscal year 2008, his last hurrah as a U.S. congressman representing Louisiana before taking over the governor's mansion, Jindal scored big in the pork contest. He, sometimes in concert with other lawmakers, ended up bringing home $97,913,200 in bacon. That put him at the number 14 spot in Taxpayers for Common Sense's annual tally of the most successful appropriators in the House.

Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, told me that Jindal has every right to change his mind about earmarks now, but "facts are facts."

"He definitely did well... in the House," said Ellis. "Clearly he was not concerned about the earmark process, or not concerned enough to say 'no' at that point."

Ellis also pointed out that Jindal's place on the list is more significant than some others.

"There's only one other lawmaker that's ahead of him that wasn't on the appropriations committee," Ellis said.

Isn't it fun getting to know our new GOP friends?

The Murtha 104

By GottaLaff

Unlike Fox, TPC is fair and balanced:

CQ Politics just released the list of 104 House members who secured earmarks on an appropriations bill managed by Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) to exclusively help a lobbying firm with close ties to Murtha.

An added bonus: Campaign contributions received by each House member from the lobbying firm are also listed.

Go here to see the list.

IWRC* Palin praised Wooten before she didn't

By GottaLaff

We're all killing time before the Big Debate, so here's an IWRC* tidbit:

Years before "Troopergate" and accusations that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin tried to kick her former brother-in-law out of the state police force, she was praising him as "a fine example" of "high-caliber personnel." In a letter dated July 8, 1999, Sarah Palin commended her future brother-in-law, Mike Wooten, for his hard work at Wasilla's July 4th parade.

"SRA Wooten worked hard to locate and deliver appropriate supplies to use in our parade," the then-mayor of Wasilla wrote to Wooten's Air Force commander. "I believe Mike is a fine example of the high-caliber personnel we are blessed to have in the United States Air Force. He was extremely helpful to our community and I thank you for allowing his assistance," Palin wrote.

And there's this:

The documents also substantiate Palin's sustained use of federal earmarks to fund local projects (she now opposes earmarks on the campaign trail), her personnel moves as mayor and her opposition to environmentalists' efforts to protect Alaska's Steller sea lions.

The unsigned letter is one of hundreds of documents released today to NBC News by the Wasilla city government, dating back to Palin's six-year term as mayor.

More Here.

*"In What Respect, Charlie?"

Busted: Palin pushed for earmarks

By GottaLaff

How many times must the Palin/McCain duo get busted for their lies before every voter gets it? Well guess what? Corporate media giant NBC now gets it:

From NBC's Jim Popkin
As a vice presidential candidate, Gov. Sarah Palin has railed against federal earmarks, or congressional funding for pork-barrel projects. "In our state, we reformed the abuses of earmarks," Palin recently boasted to a rally in Lancaster, Pa. "We championed earmark reform up there," she said, "to stop Congress from wasting public money on things that didn't serve the public interest."

But musty records culled from the archives of the Wasilla, Alaska, city government reveal that Palin was directly involved in soliciting millions of dollars in earmarks for Wasilla when she was mayor. And she got help from a well-connected Washington lobbyist.

In a monthly status report to the city on March 7, 2000, newly hired "City Lobbyist" Steve Silver describes how the Palin administration had requested $6.6 million in federal earmarks for water and sewer improvements for Wasilla, and another $1 million for police equipment. Mayor Palin reviewed and signed the lobbyist's report, dated April 5, 2000.

Okay, voters... do you all get it now? Say it with me: They're liars.

Charles Gibson interviews: Sarah Louise Palin flubs entitlement question, admits backing earmarks

By GottaLaff

Round 2:

Sarah Palin, talking about domestic policy with ABC's Charles Gibson in his second day of exclusive access on Friday, seem confused about entitlement programs--and unaware that Congress has little say in significantly reducing the costs of Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare.

When she seemed to equate these entitlement programs to agencies "where we can find efficiencies in every department" Gibson lectured her that agencies are not involved in entitlements.

Didn't Andrea Mitchell play mommy and chide her as she would a child, too? Why yes she did.

She referred to the Arizona senator as "McCain" several times in the interview.

Didn't Grandpa J Sid teach you to address him as "Mr. Grandpa"? You are so grounded.

Of note:

*For someone running against Washington--an act of Congress helped define Palin's life. Palin, 44, a high school basketball player, said, "I am a product of Title 9," a reference for the section of the 1972 act of Congress to force female sports equity.

* On earmarks--McCain is on a crusade to ban them--Palin did not make full use of an opportunity by Gibson to persuasively explain why she was for the infamous Alaskan Bridge to Nowhere before she was against it--after it was dead in Congress.

She said she just read the "writing on the wall....that project is going nowhere... circumstances have so drastically changed," she said. [...]

*She justified an earmark for an Alaskan study on the "mating habits of crabs" because it was done, she said, in the open.

So as long as you screw over Americans out in the open, it's okay? BushCo will be relieved to hear that.

*Palin differs with McCain on abortion. John and Cindy McCain would allow abortions for victims of rape and incest. Palin would only allow an exception if the life of the mother was in danger. "This is my personal opinion," she pleaded.

*On stem cell research, the McCain campaign released a radio ad Friday touting his support for stem cell research the Bush White House--and Palin opposes. [...]

*She's not a gay basher. Gibson asked Palin if homosexuality was genetic or learned and she said it's not for her to "judge" people.

*Palin said Barack Obama may regret not tapping Hillary Clinton to be his running mate. "I think he's regretting not picking her now, I do. ..."

It's good to see she's not trying to use Hillary to stir things up. And it's swell that she's refusing to judge genetics, especially when that wasn't the question. Now, about those earmarks:

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, in a new installment of her interview with ABC News's Charlie Gibson, backed earmarks and her right, both as a governor and a mayor, to request and secure them -- just don't call them earmarks. Call it "infrastructure."

"I was for infrastructure being built in the state," she said, "and it's not inappropriate for a mayor or for a governor to request and to work with their Congress, their congressmen, their congresswomen, to plug in to the federal budget along with every other state a share of the federal budget for infrastructure."

Oh-h-h, so that's what the kids are calling it these days.

In common Washington parlance, that is called an infrastructure earmark, a piece of the transportation and public works budget secured for specific state projects. [...]

Palin decried the abuse of the earmark process at first, pledging to join McCain in his campaign against earmarks. But Gibson pressed her hard to get her to concede that she backed the so-called "Bridge to Nowhere," linking tiny Ketchikan to tiny Gravina Island.

She finally gave in.

"What I supported was a link between a community and it's airport," she said.

She'd make the bestest vice president ever! She's readier than anyone could be to take the reins of the U.S. government if Pappy McCain were to kick the bucket. The readiest nominee in town... if she were running for vice president of the 5th grade.

Palin Supports Earmark Reform Because Obama and McCain Do

Via Jed.

John Sidney McCain's impulsiveness: "A cause for concern"

By GottaLaff

Just now on CNN, Rick Sanchez was hearing from a reporter who rounded up several CEOs, executives, and recruiting experts, and asked them about John Sidney McCain, Sarah Louise Palin, and all that "executive experience" they like to bandy about. The results:

"Mixed on McCain."

He went with a gut decision, a whim, in picking Palin, they said. They went on to say that the last thing you want is a surprise.

Rick Sanchez then brought up, on his own, Bristol's out-of-wedlock teen pregnancy, and Sarah Lou's small town mayorship with all of its many of earmarks... and then described her as "someone not trying to stop waste of government money".

It is cause for concern, the reporter says. The chief executive of the U.S., the CEO, shouldn't go about it in this manner, say the CEOs, etc., that he talked to. Again, he said, it's cause for concern.

Rick: And they kept it a secret. He didn't want us at CNN to know about this. History will tell us whether it worked well, especially after the REAL vetting process results come in.

I do believe this is the first time I've ever appreciated Rick Sanchez.

Lend me your earmarks, plus bonus campaign 2008 tidbits!

By GottaLaff

(Via)

Chuck Todd and Co. fills us in on an array of newsiness:

• But McCain's speech seemed to be a missed opportunity. It appears the campaign decided it simply needed to get through it -- there wasn't anything new, except a longer description of his POW days. [...] McCain used the word fight (or a variation of it) some 25 times, change 10 times, and experience just three. So by the numbers, McCain was trying to send the message that he was a fighting-warrior-for-change candidate that has enough experience to make it happen. That was the goal, but we'll know in a few days if that message was received.
• It was Palin's convention: If the McCain camp was counting on one speech to move the ball forward, it didn't succeed.[...] But is it ever a good thing to be upstaged by your VP pick? McCain was never going to win a speech contest with Obama. [...] Yet when McCain unveiled his own celebrity -- Palin, who wowed the GOP crowd on Wednesday night -- it made his speech pale in comparison....
• And who knows whether we'll get the first Sarah Palin serious issue interview before [the election]. This morning on JOE, McCain manager Rick Davis wouldn't commit to putting her out to media interviews unless they saw it as helping their campaign. This Sunday is interesting in that three of the four principles are doing sunday shows, the lone holdout: Palin.
• Obama vs. O'Reilly: It was a heated -- yet respectful -- interview over the surge in Iraq, Iran, and Pakistan. One thing is for sure: Obama seems more intent on confronting his media opponents...
• According to the AP, it was the eighth month in a row of job losses. Thnk McCain wishes he put a little more meat on the bones in the economic portion of his speech last night?
• Downballot watch: The AP also is reporting that the National Republican Senatorial Committee has canceled its $2.3 million TV buy in New Mexico, "an indication that it's leaving the GOP candidate there to fend for himself as the party braces for losses." Not only does that seem to mean that the GOP is giving up on a second Senate contest (the first was Virginia), but how will that impact the presidential race in that battleground state?
  

That was so newsy that I may never recover.