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 ...
It seems like the earmark has a similar purpose to the rest of the bill, so I would lean towards no. I think the problem with earmarks are when we add 200mil for Indian water to the defense budget, which it is clearly not part of.
I think when most people say they want earmarks to stop, they really mean subsidies or any govt money spent on individual issues.
No, it is not... because if that were the truth... The Secure Fence Act of 2006 would have been paid for and built. To remind you:
“On October 26, 2006 President George W. Bush signed “’The Secure Fence Act of 2006”’ (Pub.L. 109-367) into law stating, “This bill will help protect the American people. This bill will make our borders more secure. It is an important step toward immigration reform.”[1]
The bill was introduced on Sep. 13, 2006 by Peter T. King (R-NY). In the House of Representatives, the Fence Act passed 238 -138 on September 14, 2006. On September 29, 2006 - the Fence Act passed in the Senate 80 -19. Most Republicans voted in support of the Fence Act while most Democrats voted against it.
The Secure Fence Act of 2006’s goal is to help secure America’s borders to decrease illegal entry, drug trafficking, and security threats by building 700 miles of physical barriers along the Mexico-United States border. Additionally, the law authorizes more vehicle barriers, checkpoints, and lighting as well as authorizes the Department of Homeland Security to increase the use of advanced technology like cameras, satellites, and unmanned aerial vehicles to reinforce our infrastructure at the border. [2] Congress approved $1.2 billion in a separate homeland security spending bill to bankroll the fence, though critics say this is $4.8 billion less than what’s likely needed to get it built. [3]”
LLS
This is not even close to an “earmark.”
This water right claim, in one form or another is for water rights “taken” “sold” or otherwise “transferred” away form the Indians years ago for about 10 cents on the dollar. The amount is so high because of the time passed.
PLEASE, be aware of spurious attacks like these from the MSM over the next months. They would like nothing better than to get the public to be disgruntled with the new majority early in their term so as to mount a comeback in 2012. They especially want to divide the Tea Party from the Republicans in general.
Kyl, no matter what you think of him, is not quilty this time.
Oldplayer
It is not pork or an earmark if I do it, only if you do it!
Kyl’s office insists the measure is not an earmark,denial is such a ugly and dangerous thing.
Earmarks. The other pork.
So why does the spending bill have to specifically allocatde funds to an organization in a particular state(s)? I thought that is what is called an ‘earmark’.
Let the Indian’s settlement come out of the regularly allocated general spending funds so that it can compete with the other priorities that are also waiting to be funded.
Why does a Senator, or Senator’s particular lobbying/request get preferential treatment?
“I hate earmarks... on Tuesdays and Fridays.”
O...Kay....So what are you saying LLS? I said it’s a necessary obligation as was the funding of the fence construction. The story isn’t over yet on the funding of the Blacks, and Native American settlement. Perhaps it will get Politicked to death as did the border fence.
Regardless I see the settlement regardless of the unfortunate result of the finding, and that which you site as necessary obligations politics be damned.
Are you calling the border fencing “Pork” btw? Seems to me that (Pork) is the portion of earmarks that are, or should be under assault. NOT all earmarks are bad guys.
Hey Jon, That little earmark just cost you two votes.
This is a payment that is REQUIRED by an agreement that was made to settle a case with Native Americans and Black Farmers who claim they where discriminated against in securing loans for the purchase and upgrade of family farms.
The CBO and other internal watchdog organizations DO NOT classify this as an earmark. It is a way that Kyle has chosen to get the Government to fulfill it's LEGAL requirements to the people in his state.
The relevance and rationality of the payment is another matter, but it is by NO definition an earmark. What is the Quid Pro Quo? I am quite certain that few if any blacks voted for him,. they are not his constituency and never will be as long as Blacks stay on the Democrat Plantation.
The only earmarks people dislike are those for other states or other congressional districts.
If you want to walk point, you better be prepared for the traps waiting for you.
Then why slip it in another bill?
I understand that some spending can and should be directed to states, by their senators and representatives, because these are the people who know, or should know, how to spend the money. There is nothing inherently wrong with a road, dam or defense installation.
What marks it as sleaze, is *ANY* circumstance where it is hidden in another bill, where attention is diverted, where open and full debate, facts and sunshine are missing- THAT is the ‘appearance of impropriety’ that should be harshly punished, no exceptions, no excuses.
If it ain't ‘pork’ it can stand on it's own, not hidden in a Defense bill or anywhere else.
It was not “slipped” into a bill. The bill was for settling claims against the gov’t and this addition did fit the bill.
LLS
“We will be seeing more of these stories about Republicans taking pork home. The Dims and MSM will be sure happy to see that.”
Until earmarks are voted down, I don’t blame any politician for using them. Why should the Dems take advantage of earmarks, while they are there, but not the Republicans?
What counts is if they vote against earmarks.
The worst thing about earmarks is that they are often used as bribes to pass massive spending bills, like Obamacare.
I agree. Sounds like a Fed liability and not one for the State.
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.