Wednesday, November 24, 2010

An earmark?

Seems to have an air of earmarkiness...
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 against the government.
Nay, say the Senator's peeps. It's just a "specific spending provision ."

Told ya' they'd redefine the problem away.

Labels: , , ,


Blogger Don said...

Both sides do the earmark thing, but if you look historically at the past 184 Bills (all that I have looked at so far), by far the biggest and most earmarks have gone to Democratic folks.

Earmarks SHOULD be 100% banned for both parties, and a Bill should be about that Bill's and only that Bill's issues.


5:22 PM  
Blogger Shaun said...

Actually, Don, my guess is that your problem is more with how earmarks are done than with what earmarks do. Mine, too.

A ban would be the wrong way to go, though, the abdication of an important Congressional prerogative that's part of the warp and woof of our Constitutional separation of powers. We don't need another arena of Constitutional erosion.

9:09 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home