Earmark monitor's exit baffles, troubles GOP [pork-barrel spending]

THE WASHINGTON TIMES ^ | March 29, 2007 | Sean Lengell

[Daffynition]

The federal agency that tracked pork-barrel spending during the 12 years of the Republican congressional majority has discontinued the practice since Democrats took power, riling lawmakers suspicious of the timing and concerned about the pace of fat being added to bills.

"To me, something doesn't smell right," said Sen. Jim DeMint, South Carolina Republican. "I just hope no one is pressuring" the Congressional Research Service (CRS).

While not blaming the Democratic leadership, Mr. DeMint added: "I guess if you're looking for a motive, you'd have to look in that direction."

[Daffynition]

[Boiler Plate]

I for one, am shocked and stunned.

[AU72]

"I just hope no one is pressuring" the Congressional Research Service (CRS).

Republicans play bean bag while Democrats play full contact boxing.

[BenLurkin]

Guess that's one way for this Congress to sell itself as "ethical"

[sgtbono2002]

You got that right. Republicans are stupid and lack balls.

Stevie Wonder can see whats going on here.

Republicans are babes in the woods compared to democrats and dirty tricks.

The most ethical Hopuse Bwaahahahahahha Nancy should have been a Comedienne

[3AngelaD]

Maybe The Hill and Roll Call could take some time off from writing long stories about cross-dressing war protestors and find out what's going on at CRS.

[NonValueAdded]

Republicans play bean bag while Democrats play full contact boxing.

Sadly so. Why do we just learn about this group's demise now and not from the alphabet soup kids?

[NeoCaveman]

I guess it's not pork if it's not counted....

[Daffynition]

Proof positive that pigs can fly swim.

[tobyhill]

Gee DeMint, you think you've been getting screwed for 12 years?

[kAcknor]

Aw heck, they shouldn't worry a bit!

In the unlikely event that the Republican party grows a set, starts to effectively fight back, and in doing so convinces a majority of the American voters to give them another chance by putting them back in power, this agency will certainly see the error of it's ways and once again, begin tracking earmarks vigorously.

[SuziQ]

The federal agency that tracked pork-barrel spending during the 12 years of the Republican congressional majority has discontinued the practice since Democrats took power, riling lawmakers suspicious of the timing and concerned about the pace of fat being added to bills.

Why was a federal agency needed in the first place, and who authorized it? If the Republicans want to know if there is pork in the bills, then they need to put their staffs to work READING the dang things!

It's kinda like the pot calling the kettle black, though, because the Republicans piled on the pork the last few years themselves, and their spending was out of control. That's one of the reasons so many of them lost their bids for re-election in 2006.

[janereinheimer]

Does any congressperson read any of the bills -- in entirety -- or just the paragraph, or sentence, or phrase that they inserted so that they could say they co-sponsored?

You'd think their salary of $162,500 would motivate them to do at least a part of what they're getting paid for.

Or do they get elected to this superpowerful position and then immediately see themselves as nonworking celebrities?

[newgeezer]

Republicans piled on the pork the last few years themselves, and their spending was out of control. That's one of the reasons so many of them lost their bids for re-election in 2006.

Yeah but, if we listen to certain voices around here, the best thing we can do is keep on voting straight-ticket "R".

Dislike the megatons of pork piled on by Republicans? Get over it. Got a problem with the bloated federal government made bigger by Republicans? Get over it! Hey, if you don't shuttuppa you face and vote "R," YOU are a huge part of the problem because YOU are helping to electing Democrats!! /sarc

[SuziQ]

You'll just have to lump me in with the folks you're excoriating, because I will NEVER sit out a race, nor will I vote third party in a General election simply because I don't like the Republican. I will simply not vote for a Democrat for a General Election spot, unless that person has been shown to be an effective spokesman for conservative positions, and there are precious few who are. I don't want the Democrats to continue to wield control over the Congress, nor do I want them to EVER be in charge of the Executive Branch again.

So, I might vote for a Democrat house member, but would not vote for a Dem. for the Senate or for the Presidency. There is simply too much at stake to let the Dems be in control again.

[Owen]

And one more time, and listen carefully . . .

YOU NEVER EVER VOTE FOR ANYONE. EVER.

YOU VOTE AGAINST PEOPLE. YOU DON'T VOTE FOR. YOU VOTE TO.

When you are asked "who did you vote for?" your answer is "no one." Your answer is "I voted to deny the Democrat power."

[newgeezer]

I will NEVER ... vote third party in a General election simply because I don't like the Republican.

Then don't act surprised or disappointed when Republicans—even "conservatives"—spend just like Democrats.

On a related note... It's funny (or, sad) how we like to lay the blame for pork-barrel spending on everyone else's Republicans. "I'll keep voting for mine but, you really need to talk some sense into yours or find better ones!"

[newgeezer]

And one more time, and listen carefully

Perhaps you have me confused with one of your other slow learners?