Why is the only bipartisan thing to come out of our government pork? It used to be called "riders". Then, it was called wasteful spending (which is what it is). Then it was called pork. Now we call it earmarks. I guess earmarks is a more politically correct way to say wasteful spending. Wouldn't want to bruise anyone's self-esteem, would we?

I guess the issues discussed at the "fiscal responsibility summit" didn't cover spending money that one does not have. It seems to me that that's how we got here in the first place. I don't know what kind of economics they are teaching at Harvard these days but I think Mr. Obama should see about getting a refund from the university.

SEE:

RINO Ryan pushes line item veto!

http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php...

Earmarks are simply the statement of our elected representatives that the federal agencies must take a particular action.

They are too few, IMHO, rather than too many.

Democratic government depends upon the particular direction of its elected representatives. Sometimes, it is true, they mandate some arcane formula for the federal agency to follow. But, let's face it. That simply delegates power to the executive.

It's sad, IMHO, that our elected representatives ONLY earmark a very tiny fraction of the money they allocate.

Every lover of democratic government ought to be appalled that earmarks are so small!

Rather than being .5% of the budget, earmarks should be 99.+% of the budget!

Our elected representatives are NOT doing their job, if they are derelict on this matter! They ought to be directing, most particularly, how almost all of the budget is spent -- instead of passing the bucks to the White House and its agencies and departments, to spend as they will.

Hence, Russ has it exactly ass-back-wards. He should be seeking ways to compel the over-blown Presidency to comply with the will of Congress --- not furthering the GoP-fantasy of a Supreme Executive, the political equivalent of a Supreme Being.

Democracy does not require, and, indeed is destroyed by, Executive Supremacy.

Comrad Obama stated that he was against ear marks while running for the job and said he would fight against them, HA HA HA! you people who voted for this commie are going to have your hearts broken by this yahoo.
You have to think rather than feel and let emotions get in the way of doing the right thing.
GOD HELP US ALL.

Where have people been for the last 200 years. Earmarks are how bills get through congress with the votes needed. What spending isn't an earmark? All spending is an earmark or pork if you don't agree with it. This is a juvenile argument put forth by people who have a simple minded view of how politics work.

And Obama never said he would end the practice in his speech to Congress he said he would spend the money wisely.

Until the public is financing political campaigns, a line-item veto will only allow the president or governor to veto the opposing party's pork and let their party's pork go through. While the special interests are controlling our politicians, we need to retain the up or down vote. Look at Wisconsin's line-item veto... we should know better.

Jack Lohman
http://MoneyedPoliticians.net

Horrible idea.

How about instead the Congress writes smaller, more focused bills? How about the various committees refuse to accept earmarks?

Yeah right, like common sense would prevail...!

kiowamohican - great post

I can't believe some of you like the idea of this. Don't you remember Doyle's frankinstein veto? http://althouse.blogspot.com/2007/10/gov...
How 'bout Bushes signing statements?http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/signingstatements.php
This is just one more step to take the power away from many, and put it to the few. That is starting to sound like a dictatorship.

You don`t have complete control of any spending bill without 60 votes.

If Obama vetoes this bill, the government shuts down. There is $410 billion included as discretionary spending in it, but also over $600 billion in mandatory spending. Pretty hard to veto this one and get it re-written and passed without the government stopping.

Why is any line item veto needed? The democrats have absolute control, just as did the Republicans under Bush for 6 years. If the president doesn't like the ear marks then VETO THE ENTIRE BILL. Send it back, and say you won't pass it until the earmarks are gone. The president would be applauded by the vast majority of the public for standing up to congress, and their hated pet projects (ear marks).
.
This is just business as usual. The ear marks will pass no matter what. Nothing ever changes. The President (no matter what party) gets members of congress to support (vote for) his bill by promising them they will be able to put their pet project in the bill. It's just one big game, with the public picking up the tab, and the debt being run up by the TRILLIONS each year.

Should be a "Line Item Reserve" IF there is any funding left after the economy is up and running then they can apply. No Exceptions.

lovemycountry-Is our current president worried about it too? Because he voted for the bailout also.

Horrors! Take "the power of the purse" away from Congress? Without earmarks, how ever will our "public servants" stay in office?

The President should have line item veto, to remove congressional and senatorial pork. The Republicans are smart to support it. Either Obama can use it to cut pork (the majority of which is Democratic right now) or if he makes a big enough mess of the country, his Republican replacement in 4 or 8 years can use it to control Democratic pork.
.
Wisconsin should correct the current "gerrymandering" veto power the Governor has which can allow him to get "creative". Let him cross something off, line-by-line, but not rewrite the budget.

Spending, by the way, from Sen Feingold voting YES on the latest spending bill (over a trillion with interest), and Rep Ryan voting YES on 2008 corporate banker bailout (almost a trillion), What are they worried about now ? $150B in earmarks ?

What's not being mentioned is that earmark spending is less than .5% of all federal spending. (less now with the trillion dollar spending bill and bailouts). I guess I shouldn't be spending time on this. My childrens' future is already destined - to pay back current federal government spending and interest.

I think this is a step in the right direction, but doubt it will ever happen. Feingold seems unable to get the support from Democrats needed to pass any reform legislation. Yesterdays vote on legislation that provide similar results proved that. Both he and McCain sponsored the bill, and all but eight Republicans supported it. Feingold only had the support of two Democrats.

Of course Obama calling it "last years news" is his way of getting around his campaign promises. He has no intention of doing half the stuff he promised. Government spending is so out of control...of course it always has been easier to spend someone else's money rather than your own.

obama won't use it like one would wish to dump the earmarks and such pork, he is too beholding to the extream far left and the pelosies of the world.we are not on a rollar coaster, that presums a quicker return to the top than will happen. we are freefalling to the depths of a depression. a friend of mine dumped 1 mill of stocks and bonds. he's out and i don't blame him.

As lovemycountry points out, this idea has at least once failed constitutional muster. I do not see, short of a constitutional amendment, how the Congress will cede power to the executive branch, no matter who is President.

Moreover, a line-item veto will simply lead to horse trading as to what gets vetoed and what does not. That would result ia a practice potentially worse than what we have now.

What is needed is a constitutional amendment to ban the practice of adding earmarks, or other amendments to a bill, that do not directly pertain to the subject of the bill.

Line item veto is an "absolute must" to begin the fight against excessive government spending. I am proud that Feingold and Ryan have put their necks out there to publicly support this initiative.

Of course the definition of earmarks is something added by a member of Congress, so there are no earmarks in the President's bill. The President, being the executive, gets to set priorities.
.
The line-item veto won't eliminate earmarks completely, it will just shift some of the negotiating to between members of Congress and the White House. The WH is already heavily involved but this might unexpectedly shift some power from the Whips (and Deputy Whips), who are responsible for a lot of the horse-trading to get people on board a vote.
.
Ultimately the whole idea of earmarks is something that makes good copy but the examples bruited about -- like volcano monitoring -- tend to fail the test of being inherently bad ideas, at least for anyone with an education. The government spends program money anyway and earmarks rarely really change the program totals per se, they just dictate where or how it's spent. It's not really a major part of the budget and prevents substantive discussion of how to manage our more important outlays.
.
I do think it's interesting that McCain and Ryan are willing to give this power to a Democratic President.

Feingold and Ryan want to put even MORE power into the hands of the Executive??? Even retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has been telling us the stats that only 1/3 of the citizenry even understand our democracy has been based upon "3 branches" with a balancing authority. The danger of concentrated power was evident in the Bush administration: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/...

"If he has line item veto power, why wouldn't he simply cross out earmarks that don't fit his agenda and leave the rest?"

You're forgetting these bills are already written by Senate Democrats. Do you want his agenda or theirs?

Sneaking something onto a bill?
Wait, that's what they are trying to do with the smoking ban in Wisconsin. They are trying to somehow sneak it in the budget! Before you know it, they will try to make animal ownership part of the budget.

Not to start a fight, but his budget is just an outline so far, there are no earmarks, and no details. He is calling this omnibus spending bill, "last years news", and it should have been passed last Fall. The government is threatened with shutdown if the money is not appropriated, so it would be hard to veto it. In the campaign he said that earmarks would be kept at 1994 levels and be "transparent', in HIS legislation, not this legislation.

President Obama has been pushing through his agenda so far. We expected that, as did his fans. If he has line item veto power, why wouldn't he simply cross out earmarks that don't fit his agenda and leave the rest ?

I like the idea of a line item veto! I think it would give us insight into how the president stands and also would get things done faster.meaning some things are held up because of certain earmarks. Obama said he wouldn't give earmarks but his budget has so many you can't hardly count them. I don't believe he is sticking to his promises and I would like to see him do it! Of course it would be a first for a politician to follow through on their promises during their campaign. And why is he not talking about it? He's hiding it and not being open with us on all these earmarks he supposedly wasn't going to allow!

How about if we just elect public servants at the federal level that don't waste our money on earmarks to begin with ?

Conservatives, if you want someone keeping tabs on Reid and Pelosi, this is how to do it. McCain and Ryan have it right on this one.

He would pick single items he views to be the most wasteful. They wouldn't end up voting on 8,000 of them.

I'm in favor of this. Too many of those earmarks delay laws that need to be enacted promptly. Or, worse, the earmarks succeed for just that reason -- that they're attached to something that needs to be passed.

If it was structured to send the items back to be voted on, instead of just thrown out, it would probably be constitutional. But, I would really love to see Congress voting on over 8000 items(60% Democrat, 40% Republican) that are in this package!

lovemycountery...a MUCH better example would be governor thompson, who infamously attempted to COMPLETELY REVERSE the intent of over 200 pieces of legislation by simply crossing out the word "no."

Well at least the political parties are uniting to some degree.

The line item veto (under Clinton) was already struck down by the Supreme Court as being unconstitutional. It takes even more power from Congress (including our state representatives - the public servants we can hold accountable at least every 2 years).
Allowing our Congress to pawn off power to the President is exactly how Bush was able to take us into the Iraq invasion disaster.

If the line item veto is only for non-voted earmarks...why not change the rules that allow earmarks without a floor vote?

The line item veto is a great tool and also a great way to hold this or any President responsiable for their promises. Under the current system, a President can claim to be against wasteful spending, illegal imigration, millitary buildup or anything else but can justify signing a bill that includes any of them because their only choice is to veto the entire bill which may include other things they say they favor.

Under the line item veto, if a President says he or she is against pork barrel spending they have the right to veto just that part of the legislation that they beleive cotnains it. No excuses for letting it through.

It will be interesting to see how this moves through Congress as one should believe that this is either right or wrong regardless of who currently is in the White House. My guess is that many Democrats who opposed it when Bush was President will now favor it and many Republicans who were in favor of it will now oppose it. Kudos to both Ryan and Feingold for their consistency on the issue.

So, Republicans John McCain and Paul Ryan want to give MORE power to President Obama ? It's understandable from Senator ignore-the-constitution McCain, but Rep. Ryan ?
And we know President Obama wouldn't use this new line item veto power to merely allow the him to determine which pork he may favor because why ? President Obama already promised not to approve any more pork projects, right ? You would have thought Paul Ryan and Russ Feingold, from WI, would have learned this lesson from our veto mess here with Gov. Doyle.