Working Database of all earmarks included in the omnibus bill

Congressional Office ^ | Dec. 15, 2010 | Tom Coburn

[gartrell bibberts]

The end-of-the-year Omnibus Appropriations bill includes approximately $8.3 billion and 6,714 earmarks.

It's important to note that the database only refers to disclosed earmarks, not the billions in undisclosed earmarks.

[gartrell bibberts]

Thank you Tom Coburn for showing the many ridiculous spending requests by some of our elected "Vote Buyers".

[RedMDer]

Thanks for posting. This is great information to have.

[Venturer]

We are wasting our time with elections. These people are not listening to us.

Republicans making compromise deals that cost a trillion dollars before they even get in power. Omnibus Bills costing billions with 6714 earmarks, DADT, Amnesty, Freedom is doomed. I don’t think anything can save America, We are going to slowly have our freedoms taken, like the frog in the lukewarm water.

The people we elect only want their paychecks and power , thay do not represent us and could care less once they are elected.

[stuartcr]

If earmarks make some people wealthy, and wealthy people are the ones that generate jobs...what’s wrong with earmarks?

[epithermal]

I downloaded this and converted it to an xls file and would like to pull out my congress rats earmarks. Can any of you Excel experts tell me if it is possible to do a search and have it return a worksheet with all the occurrences of the results? I am very rusty with my Excel.

[meyer]

If earmarks make some people wealthy, and wealthy people are the ones that generate jobs...what’s wrong with earmarks?

Earmarks don't create wealth - they steal from productive people (aka 'taxpayers') and distribute to lazy people (aka 'liberals'). Wealth created by productive people will be used to create jobs because that wealth is invested mostly towards productive purposes. Wealth stolen from productive people and redistributed to freeloaders in return for their vote will not be used towards productive means but instead will be used to enrich the lazy. The lazy will squander it rather than invest it. And, the original earners from whom the wealth was stolen will be discouraged from producing in the future, lest the fruit of his labor again be stolen by the tax man to give away to the deadbeats in the form of 'earmarks'.

[stuartcr]

So if earmarks go to a senators pet institute in his state, and that institute creates jobs with it, that’s not good? Seems like that would be a way for govt to create jobs.

[acw011]

Just sorted on Grayson - just cuz I don’t like the guy and he’s responsible for 12,704,000$

Here’s one:
http://rubelab.org/index.html

[acw011]

Talking to myself now -

Two biggest studs from Wisco - Ryan & Sensenbrenner 0.00$

[meyer]

So if earmarks go to a senators pet institute in his state, and that institute creates jobs with it, that’s not good? Seems like that would be a way for govt to create jobs.

Nope, or at least not as effectively as leaving the money in the hands of people that can invest in something useful instead. Remember, for every dollar the government taxes (steals from the private sector), 10 dollars worth of investment are removed from the economy. That's investment that would not just create jobs but would create goods that people want as well.

If a government-controlled job market were superior to the private sector, the Soviet Union would have been a success and the United States (Prior to its hard turn left) would have been a failure.

Instead of wasting future tax dollars on non-productive "make-work" jobs, it's better to leave those dollars in the private sector where they will be used in a much more beneficial manner.

[stuartcr]

While it may not be as effective, it does actually create jobs doesn’t it? What happens to the workers if earmarks stop, and the business doesn’t get anymore money? Won’t the people just elect someone that does bring business to their state?

[RedMDer]

BTTT

[meyer]

While it may not be as effective, it does actually create jobs doesn’t it? What happens to the workers if earmarks stop, and the business doesn’t get anymore money? Won’t the people just elect someone that does bring business to their state?

Think about this for a second when you think about government "creating" jobs. The EPA employs thousands, yet this agency is responsible for eliminating tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs in America. Ditto groups like OSHA and NEA - they create positions of useless paper-pushers, but the net result has been to destroy the private sector.

As for business "getting any money", whose money is it in the first place? If they're a profitable, taxpaying entity, it's their own money. Since when does government stealing money from the private sector and returning it to SOME entities constitute a stimulating business environment? The answer to growing free enterprise and the business community lies in getting government's greedy hands out of the taxpayer's pocket and ending the drastically restrictive regulatory climate that they've created. It does not involve redistributing tax dollars stolen from private taxpayers and future taxpayers.

We don't need government "bringing business to the state" - we need government getting out of the way so that business will WANT to come to the state.

[stuartcr]

I agree, but it just isn’t that way. We’re never going to get rid of politicians that will do away with getting pork for their states or districts. That is the main message they all spew at election time, isn’t it? They all promise they will fight for us and bring jobs to their constituents. What else would they say or what else can they do? Once they get to DC, they dowhat they do, to get re-elected. Seems like something is better than nothing. Do you have a realistic solution to stop pork and earmarks, one that will actually be put into action?