1
Well, when the Dems cut it to $1 billion, then it can be a "bipartisan" issue. Maybe then it can be zeroed out?

2 Clowns to the left of me,
Jokers to the right.

3 I have the same message for Mr. Reid as I do for Mr. Obama.

Sir, please remove your hand from my wallet.

4 What frustrates me is that the only solution here is unilateral disarmament.  If the GOP gives up earmarks, then all it means is that the Dems can use them to buy votes and pork up their districts.

5 The White House, he claims, is trying to "steal power" from Congress.

How dare the White House steal taxpayer money! That's our job!!!

6 Oh, and I love how conspicuous Ron Paul is on this, the prick.

7 Is there nothing Dear Leader can't do? 

8

See, he's defending the Constitution.

If Dingy Harry is defending the actual text of the Constitution, Hell must be freezing over indeed.

How unprecedented! 

9 Sir, please remove your hand from my wallet.

Posted by: looking closely at December 17, 2010 11:12 AM (6Q9g2)

Oh, sorry, didn't mean to grope your wallet.

10 It's not true, at least not as the MFM is claiming.

I'm shocked, shocked to see lying going on in the media.

11 Nevada unemployment rate over 14%. Congratulations Nevadians idiots.

12 4 What frustrates me is that the only solution here is unilateral disarmament

Yep, that's always our problem.

I got into it with a friend (via FB) yesterday over the McDonald's lawsuit thing, but quickly hit an impasse.  He clearly thinks that he has a right to tell me what I can and cannot do because it's "wrong" of McDonald's to advertise Happy Meals to kids... even though his own kids are far to young to be buying them on their own.  I couldn't get him to see that it falls on him and his wife to parent their children and that listening to kids whine was not reason enough to violate the rights of everyone else. 

I would like to be able to take away some of his rights - ones he actually cares about - but that's not in my nature.  Very frustrating. 

13 Democrats Request $51.7 Billion In Earmarks So that's about $100 per taxpayer. I'm sure your average taxpayer has nothing better to spend $100 on then the Robert Sheets Byrd Monument (#52) or the John Kerry Center for Yacht Tax Awareness.

14 Nevada unemployment rate over 14%. Congratulations Nevadians idiots.

Posted by: Dr. Spank at December 17, 2010 11:16 AM (1fB+3)

Yeah, but its those non-unions pricks so everything's good.

15 Heh heh... Ron Paul and earmarks.  How very, very... unexpected.

16 You know, even Byron falls into this trap of "If one Republican does it, then the whole party is responsible."  Four out of 178, with at least one of them a conspicuous true RINO (Cao), one a creepy weirdo with some very bizarre views, one leaving anyway and one a notorious porker.

That's a statistical error.

17 #9

Yes, you did mean to fondle my wallet.

 

18
I would like to be able to take away some of his rights - ones he actually cares about - but that's not in my nature.  Very frustrating. 

Posted by: Y-not at December 17, 2010 11:17 AM (IDL9N)

The Left will continue to use the tactics they do now until we use said tactics against them. 

19 13 Democrats Request $51.7 Billion In Earmarks So that's about $100 per taxpayer. I'm sure your average taxpayer has nothing better to spend $100 on then the Robert Sheets Byrd Monument (#52) or the John Kerry Center for Yacht Tax Awareness.

Posted by: 18-1 at December 17, 2010 11:18 AM (7BU4a)

Yea, that always pisses me off, too. They take my money and then name some piece of crap building or bridge or highway after themselves. Shit, go out and work for living, run a business or sweep streets then take that money and build whatever you want.

20 No. If even one dollar of earmarks or pork is traced to the Republicans then our only resort is to support a third party to punish them. I suggest COD as the head of the party.

21 7 Is there nothing Dear Leader can't do? Posted by: Jane D'oh at December 17, 2010 11:14 AM (UOM4 You mean side from win Afghanistan, secure the borders, stand up to Iran and North Korea, and restore the economy? No, aside from all that, nothing.

22 The Left will continue to use the tactics they do now until we use said tactics against them.

That's why I have proposed a single-payer system for legal care.

Let's see how they like it.

23

maverick Texas Rep. Ron Paul

We need a new adjective.  The floor is open for nominations.

By the way, a commnenter wrote that Emmanuel Cleaver's $48 billion earmark request for redistributing money to the inner cities was a typo in early reportage -- it's $48 million, not billion.

Which means it WAS all about a seedy land deal in downtown Kansas City involving a "non-profit" that no one had ever heard of...

24 I wish one of the Ronulans would explain to me why Dr. Ron is adhering to the true spirit of the Constitution, as only he and his catamites acolytes truly understand, with these earmarks and why I'm such a fucking dunce for not understanding that and thinking that he's being a cocksucking whore.

25 I got into it with a friend (via FB) yesterday over the McDonald's lawsuit thing, but quickly hit an impasse.  He clearly thinks that he has a right to tell me what I can and cannot do because it's "wrong" of McDonald's to advertise Happy Meals to kid

Try this one: Unless he lives in PA or something, tell him you think it's irresponsible to sell alcohol of any kind in a place where kids are allowed in the building.

Betcha he (or she) drinks and loves buying wine at the grocery store.

26 24 I wish one of the Ronulans would explain to me why Dr. Ron is adhering to the true spirit of the Constitution, as only he and his catamites acolytes truly understand, with these earmarks and why I'm such a fucking dunce for not understanding that and thinking that he's being a cocksucking whore.

Posted by: Captain Hate at December 17, 2010 11:26 AM (kOMUP)

Oh, God, please don't.  They'll do it.  They'll find a way.  They're crazy.

27 Posted by: Captain Hate at December 17, 2010 11:26 AM (kOMUP)

He and his acolytes have a sense of superiority that's particularly irritating.

28 Ron Paul just wants to demonstrate to Americans the tinkerbell effect of our money in a fiat system.

29 #12--

"A man is likely to mind his own business when it is worth minding.  When it is not, he takes his mind off his own meaningless affairs by minding other people's business.

"This minding of other people's business expresses itself in gossip, snooping and meddling, and also in feverish interest in communal, national and racial affairs.  In running away from ourselves we either fall on our neighbor's shoulder or fly at his throat."

30 Posted by: AmishDude at December 17, 2010 11:12 AM (BvBKY)

Actually, with some fiscal discipline, we have far more power than that.

Imagine this scenario (that will never happen, because I expect business as usual to resume, at the latest, in January 2012):

A Republican majority (don't even need a super majority) in both House and Senate.  Every "amendment" which would add pork to any bill is defeated (even just by the most slim of margins).

We wouldn't have to "convince" Democrats to disarm, we could simply disarm them.

Again, it'll never happen, because the Republicans will hear that siren call of sweet, sweet government cheese and cronyism and start trying to buy votes as well.  But sometimes its nice to dream.

31 We need a new adjective.  The floor is open for nominations.

Then I nominate: Bat Guano Insane.  Or just "Insane" for short.

32 He and his acolytes have a sense of superiority that's particularly irritating.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at December 17, 2010 11:28 AM (LH6ir)

I agree; I've never encountered one to which the term "insufferable douche" didn't apply.  Maybe one or two exist but not by my experience.

33 O/T:  I'm going to go see TRON on Sunday, and my wife just informed me that the npr critics didn't like it.  Among their problems was that the plot was, shall we say, a little fractured.

My two responses:  "If it comes from npr, I believe the opposite.  This applies to all topics."  "If someone is going to TRON for the plot, they're going to the wrong movie."

34

Yuck. Harry Reid is a lying sack of progressive shit. I've forgotten more about the Constitution than he'll ever know.

And if he was truly serious about The Vapid One™ "stealing power" away from Congress, then where are all the investigations into his stable of czars and their new regulations that are strangling our economy? Huh?

35 Earmarks are unconstitutional bribes.

36 Posted by: ya2daup at December 17, 2010 11:34 AM (FcKXR)

Speaking of O'Care, I didn't see this mentioned very much (but I may have just missed it) but a VA Federal Judge found the Mandate unconstitutional recently (last week?), and Texas AG Greg Abbot was on the radio this morning saying that, based on the questions from the Judge in FL, he expects that judge also to find the mandate unconstitutional.

My understanding is that, because they didn't include some standard clause that says "if one part of this bill is found unconstitutional, that doesn't necessarily effect the rest of the bill," that should strike down the whole thing.  Anyone know if I'm right on that?

37 explain to me why Dr. Ron is... being a cocksucking whore.

Don't look at us.  We didn't teach him that brand of crazy.

38 Clowns to the left of me,
Jokers to the right.
Into the Valley of Debt
Rode the 435.

39

"By the way, a commnenter wrote that Emmanuel Cleaver's $48 billion earmark request for redistributing money to the inner cities was a typo in early reportage -- it's $48 million, not billion. Still"

Bullshot.  Jim H (over @ Gateway P) has the screencap from the (now) scrubbed site.  It was $48 B - only dropped to $48 M after the shite hit the intarwebs.  With any luck it should drop to $.48 by tomorrow...

 

40

Anyone know if I'm right on that?

Cuchinelli (sp?) was on Greta's show a few weeks back explaining in detail what you mentioned, that the language of the bill failed to include that provision and the whole thing could be voided because of it.

If that happens, it will be such sweet schadenfreude, which goes great in coffee this time of year, BTW.

41
That's why I have proposed a single-payer system for legal care.

Let's see how they like it.

Posted by: AmishDude at December 17, 2010 11:24 AM (BvBKY)

I'm a firm believer that we should go hard after the legal and entertainment industries.

Both are a cesspool of corruption, but they pay off the right people so nothing gets done about it.

Single-payer legal care? I'm on board!

42 @42
No, that's not the case.  If SCOTUS strikes down the mandate, it only affects the mandate and not the rest of Hellcare.  There were some threads about this a week ago, perhaps?  Severability is not a magic sword, unfortunately.

43 If you have a boner for COD two months after your last election, we suggest you visit a hospital emergency ward for treatment immediately as you may be causing sleep apnea in others.

44 The reason you will not eliminate earmarks are twofold.

The first is they are right, it's a small percentage of the budget BUT the budget is a lot bigger than it needs to be so even a tiny percentage is a lot of money.

The second is some of these are legitimate and needed. Make fun all you want but I don't have a problem with spending money on nationally recognized landmarks like Paul Revere's Home.

The solution instead is to go after the fat on the pork. Citizen's groups and think tanks would get farther if they called a bad earmark that and said a good earmark should be approved. Rather than lumping them all together.

One thing that absolutely has to go is things for a library, foundation or museum for retiring/dead Congressmen.  The only person this should be for is former presidents.

45 The only person this should be for is former presidents.
Woo-hoo!

46 "As we look back in history, the Founding Fathers would be cringing to hear people talking about eliminating earmarks." -- Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid, (D-NV)

In other news, NASA scientists have tracked down and attributed the small wobble irregularity in the Earth's rotation to the high-speed torque created by some caskets in northern Virginia...

47 Make fun all you want but I don't have a problem with spending money on nationally recognized landmarks like Paul Revere's Home.

I won't make fun, but I will say you're wrong.  You're accepting the idea that because something is admirable (as preserving historic landmarks of all varieties certainly is) that it is something Government should do.  This is incorrect.

I believe that Paul Revere's home (and other historical sites) should be preserved: I don't believe one dime of forced tribute (read: Taxes) should be paid for it.  How about, instead, we set up the Society for Preservation of American History (or something) which would be funded only by donations and other private means and let them handle it?  If it's important enough to enough people, they'll do fine.  If it's not, then they won't.  However sad that outcome may be, it would certainly underscore the fact that there is no authorization for the Federal Government to spend the money that way.

48 Now that we've heard Reid admit spending is a congressional power and not that of the executive branch, the next time the left starts bitching about Bush's spending and "the last 8 years" can we tell them to sit down and STFU since it was the CONGRESS who spent all that money and not Bush - especially over the last 2 years of his term when deficits exploded and the Dummycraps controlled both chambers?

49 "If it comes from npr, I believe the opposite.  This applies to all topics."
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at December 17, 2010 11:34 AM (8y9MW)

I think that is a reasonable and simple rule for pretty much everything.

50 You're missing the point, Rocks. Earmarks should be banned, period. You want to fund the Paul Revere museum? Introduce it as a separate bill. Put your fucking name on it.

51 Just raise the issue of why a neo-nazi was editing the newsletter.  Then, the excuse making really goes into overdrive.

52 It's Billion with a B not Million.   Here is the earmarks website from the Congressman own website.   Look under Quality Day.  It spells out Billion...

http://tinyurl.com/23x9vwj

From Gateway Pundit:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2vulaaj

53 I'm mildly sympathetic to federal spending when it comes to the infrastructure needs of less-populated states. 

That said, if there's federal money to be given, it needs to be given to the state to decide what to do with it, not earmarked by a rep to buy favor.

54

Ace ~ a correction to your "correction:"

Rep. Cleaver's earmark was indeed for $48B (BILLION not million).

See here: http://tinyurl.com/2vulaaj

55

54, 56...

Hmm. Where did I see that before?

56 I buy Reid completely here. He is defending the constitution, and exactly how the framers intended: jealously and contentiously, over matters of his own office and institution's stature and power. And overall, he's right - each president is getting more powerful and his lack of a line-item veto and inability to stop the people's reps from putting any crazy mix of good and bad on his desk to sign and execute is one of the few hard and fast ways his own intentions and prerogatives are qualified and checked. Congress can only be deprived of this massive power/duty by constitutional amendment, or the Body's self-imposed, and enforced rigorous self-restraint (swearing off earmarks and pork and the like). Reid is saying, as Senators are supposed to, hey: this is only inhibiting our own abilities and prerogatives to serve our constituents our way, without them having to look only to central executive authority to address specific local and personal concerns/grievances. This is about making self-governance/democracy stronger through more deliberative legislation honed and aimed at the local "needs" of the districts, states, and constituents who representatives are supposed to be somewhat focused on, and, you know, represent. (Pork/earmarks seem largely a symbolic, Christmasy victory/miracle to me anyway). Personally I am happy to see the omnibus bill go, but constitutionally, I think Reid might have a point about this. That's not to say he is constitutionally correct either (who am I, Justice Waldorf Edison over here?) - but I do think you can agree or disagree with his remarks on purely constitutional grounds (aside from the ideological/partisan/personal/sociopathic reasons that he also favors his legislations and earmarks).

57 Trust me, Reid cares nothing for the Constitutional argument, except as political cover.  If he cared about such things, the last two years would have played out far differently.

Always consider the source.

58 What a piece of shit.   He goes about name calling ("look up hypocrite in the dictionary") and then has the audacity to lecture Republicans (I seriously doubt he was referring to Dems) to stop the "mean-spirited talk".

Wow.   I am utterly disappointed with the folks in Nevada for re-electing this scum, no matter what their feelings about Angle.

59 From National Review Online The Corner blog:

Omnibus Defeat Is a Victory for Reality

December 17, 2010 1:24 P.M.
Sarah Palin

IÂ’m glad the Senate came to its senses and killed the omnibus spending monstrosity. That outrageous trillion-dollar pork buffet was an outright slap in the face to the American publicÂ’s expressed wishes in the last election. It was as if Congress was earning its historically low 13 percent approval rating before our very eyes. I applaud senators like Jim DeMint, John McCain, and others who fought this and stopped it.

However, the very fact that some lawmakers on Capitol Hill thought such reckless spending was even remotely acceptable is disturbing. WeÂ’re facing trillion-dollar deficits and a record national debt, but some people still want to continue spending like thereÂ’s no tomorrow. If the European debt crisis teaches us anything, itÂ’s that tomorrow always comes. Sooner or later, the markets will expect us to settle the bill for the enormous Obama-Pelosi-Reid spending binge. WeÂ’ve already been warned by the credit ratings agency MoodyÂ’s that unless we get serious about reducing our deficit, we may face a downgrade of our credit rating. Even the lamest of lame ducks canÂ’t ignore this reality.

60 The White House, he claims, is trying to "steal power" from Congress.

So your party gets it's clock cleaned, and as a result, the President whose only power over legislation is the ability to block it, has to negotiate a deal while your deposed asses still have control, in order to avoid the raw deal of "sign what the Republicans put in front of you or be the President that hiked taxes on all Americans" that is going to occur next month. And you blame him for "stealing" congresses power? Congress still has all that power buddy, you are just losing power to Republicans. That sucking (not in a good way) sickening sinking feeling like your life force is being ripped from your body. Yeah that is your relevance leaving your body.

So tell me.

And be honest; how do you feel?
Remember this is for posterity.

61 And MikeTheMoose comes in from left field with a reference from The Princess Bride. Well played, sir!

62 The elephant in the room that seems to go unnoticed is that there isnÂ’t a single appropriation bill passed by this Congress for FY2011.  Everything was in the omnibus bill.  This Congress is the failure of all failures.

63 Re the confusion as to whether the "request"--regardless of whether Cleaver actually "requested" the earmark or merely reported a constituent's proposal:  The project originator's website not only *says* 48 Billion for Phase 1, but is quite detailed in asking for "$48.060 Billion."  He goes on to explain that the little digit to the right of the decimal point--an amount of sixty Million dollars--is to be used to get things going by buying a very specific 13 acres of dilapidated commercial real estate in Kansas City.

The mind behind this project is one "Lamar Mickens," who runs a daycare with his wife out of his house.  Spend just a few minutes reading Mickens' prose and you'll quickly see what's afoot.  For example, Lamar has specified that the project will hire 250,000 local folks to do the clearing and construction. 

One hesitates to lampoon this too much, because it's great to have big ideas.  It's just abundantly clear that Mickens has no experience in the areas he seeks to enter.

The buildings in the tract are mostly vacant and likely a net liability, since the city has the power to force the owners to demolish them if they're unsafe or "attractive nuisances." So the property's current net worth is virtually zero.

Mickens has been pushing this project since 2008.  It would be interesting to see if the property changed hands around that time, and who the current owners are.

But bottom line, it really was 48 Billion.