Posted on 11/24/2010 6:20:38 AM PST by WOBBLY BOB
WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans' ban on earmarks — money included in a bill by a lawmaker to benefit a home-state project or interest — was short-lived.
Only three days after GOP senators and senators-elect renounced earmarks, Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl, the No. 2 Senate Republican, got himself a whopping $200 million to settle an Arizona Indian tribe's water rights claim.
Kyl slipped the measure into a larger bill sought by President Barack Obama and passed by the Senate on Friday to settle claims by black farmers and American Indians against the federal government. Kyl's office insists the measure is not an earmark, and the House didn't deem it one when it considered a version this year.
But it meets the know-it-when-you-see-it test, critics say. Under Senate rules, an earmark is a spending item inserted "primarily at the request of a senator" that goes "to an entity, or (is) targeted to a specific state."
(Excerpt) Read more at twincities.com ...
got rope?
lol
This is why we are past the point where elections will fix this thing.
Don’t they know the MSM will be going over them with a scrutiny democrats never get.
We will be seeing more of these stories about Republicans taking pork home. The Dims and MSM will be sure happy to see that.
What did you expect? That Republicans wouldn’t touch the corrupting government whiskey?
ROFLMAO!
Do not put your faith in princes, be they Democrats, Republicans, or whatever. The vast majority of the time human beings (whether they are princes, elected representatives, or otherwise) will do what they perceive to be in their best interests. We need to make it in their best interests to do what is right. Vote ‘em out when they fail to do what is in America’s best interests.
Agreed. Washington corrupts everything and everybody it touches. There are no exceptions.
Win one for the Grifter!..............
They say that money is the “mother’s milk” of politics, but it’s not. It’s corn liquor.
Mr. Kyl needs to get a correspondence from each of us.
Was this money already set to be SPENT in the bill, or was this additional monies added in addition to the original bill? If the former, then this is a blatant exercise of the legislature’s power of the purse.
Inhofe makes a good point about earmarks when he defends them as part of the the legislature’s directives to the executive.
Can this really be classified as an earmark?
If its using taxpayer money to buy votes, its an earmark.
And, no, I didn't bother to read the article ... sue me!
How bout a RINO Roast in Texas.
LLS
I don’t believe this is an earmark per se as there has been a negotiated settlement to the Black Farmers, and the “Native Americans” recently, and whether we like it or not the funding has to come from somewhere to honor the agreed upon settlement.
If it’s an earmark, then it’s one of those that Sen Inhofe was discussing a couple of weeks ago. He’s right, and so is Kyl on this one. It’s NOT pork. It’s a necessary obligation requiring funding.
Good... then they are helping us to do the job we want done... no more spending... stop entitlements wherever possible... cut cut cut cut cut socialist spending.
LLS
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.