1 Lettermarking is the new sexting.

2 I don't know if the GOP is going to survive much longer. At some point, they just prove they don't care, and it's time for the party to die.

Replaced with what, exactly? 

3
Great.

The Democrats need only 25 seats to take back the House.

The Republicans are already giving us a reason to stay home in 2012.

4 I'm getting really, really tired of this.  Not that I'm terribly surprised Mark Kirk would do it.

I think that, on January 6th, we need to jam the Washington phone circuits (yep, shut the whole city phone system down, if possible) calling our Senators and Reps to remind them that their job, their "mandate" is to cut spending and taxes.  And by "cut" we mean real cuts, not just retarding the growth.

5
Replaced with what, exactly? 

Reunion tour baby......

6 Kirk will flip parties. He only won because a green candidate run and drew a lot of votes from people who could not stomach Obama crook buddy.

7 If the GOP blows it the next 2 years, they are toast in my book.

8 Posted by: Y-not at December 28, 2010 02:06 PM (IDL9N)

If many (let alone most) Republicans go along with this?  I almost don't care.  In fact, part of me, at that point, says "hit the gas."  Let the country do a full Thelma and Louise so we can start picking up the pieces that much earlier.

But I haven't been getting a lot of sleep the last couple of days, so maybe I'm just grouchier than normal.

9 Sorry if I'm unclear but is this simply limited to Kirk and maybe one or two others, or is this a larger more involved problem? Either way it's a teaching moment to show us all how untrustworthy and how greedy all these rats really are, and an object lesson as to how our country got in this shape to begin with.

10

I don't know if the GOP is going to survive much longer. At some point, they just prove they don't care, and it's time for the party to die.

Okay, wait, hold on. How many of them are actually doing this?

I'd like a hard number before I commit to the doom & gloom and death of everything mentality.

11

Call the RNC and simply tell them, no budget cuts, no cash from me.

 

Put them on notice... let them know, now it is your move.

12

I have to agree to an extent. The Republican party seems to have missed the message that swept them into power in  the House.

I know we don't get power until the next congress is seated, but it's amazing to me how much democratic legislation has passed in the lame duck session. I know everyone considered START as some minor issue, but when has a lame duck session of congress ever passed a treaty like that?

Or how about the fact the Republicans are letting all the fuckwads conservatives hate take positions of power within the party. Oh you created a new position for that tea party woman from North Dakota, thanks for tossing us the rib bone after you ate all the meat off it.

Upton getting the energy chair. F'ing Lisa Murkowski has voted for every democratic initiative in the lame duck session and still has her chair. I get so pissed when I think about that.

This lame duck session has shown us the true colors of many Republicans. I hope 2011-2012 primaries are an ever worse blood letting than the last ones were.

13 Sorry, first comment on HotAir says only Kirk has been caught. But due to it's nature this trick is harder to track.

14

Did we really expect more from Mark Kirk?  I don't think that I would pin his actions on the whole party but yeah, if it actually is a common practice in the GOP we're fucked.

15 Before people get their panties in a bunch, has anyone asked the leadership about changing the rules to take care of this loophole? If they say no, or don't try, or the Congress/caucus votes it down, THEN you can get all verklempt.

16 I think we need to start a pool to predict the exact date on which the Great Trials of 2017 became inevitable.  I'll just take today to make my search easier.

17 So then, what you are saying is that I shouldn't be contacting federal agencies asking them to spend money on certain things because it is bad?  I shouldn't help to advise them what is the best use of the money they have, but should leave it to the bureaucrats of the federal government to determine what is the best way their agency should be run?  Yeah, they've done so well so far.

18 I always thought it was strange that the repubs allowed dems to define consitutional conservative principles, limited govt. Of course the lame press runs with it, but I thought it was strange that the repubs never confront the media when they go on their shows and frankly don't seem to have realised it, or perhaps it is that they don't really want to fight for it, and so therefore they are scared of people like Demint, Lee, etc who will fight them (repubs) as well as the dems for these constitutional conservative principles.

19 A politician is a politician is a politician, like a crook is a crook is a crook.

20 The time of purification is at hand

21
getting elected to Congress = license to raid our Treasury?

I think that is the general impression.

22 I shouldn't help to advise them what is the best use of the money they have, but should leave it to the bureaucrats of the federal government to determine what is the best way their agency should be run?

This is why BUDGETS and not continuing resolutions are a necessity in a democracy and it is also the great untold sin of this past session of Congress.  When budgets are unclear or unimportant, shenanigans ensue.

23

What's so annoying about this spending binge is that when the government did finally touch a 'third rail' -- no SS COLA for the last two years -- nothing happened.  A clear majority of the people not in Washington DC get the need for fiscal austerity.  Meanwhile in DC, acting on their stereotype of the average American, they keep ramming through billions in idiotic pork which nobody wants but those who get the checks.

Elections don't have consequences as it turns out.   

 

 

 

24 One would think that the Ethics Committee would take an interest in this.  Just to determine if it's a shakedown or not.

25 The players may change, but the game remains the same.

Abusive spending is a result of systemic failure.

Until the system is changed (ie the rules of the game) this stuff is going to go on and on.

26

No, Kirk will not flip. 

I really don't know how it can be stopped, though.  A Congressman can call an agency anytime he wants.  It's lobbying, first amendment and all.  Congressmen have to be able to call agencies just for constituent services.

What do we need?  Anti-earmarks.  Congressmen can write into a bill specific items of spending they want cut.

Hell, I'm for earmarks if it comes with a corresponding cut of at least 5 times the amount of the earmark.

We also need to throw out "deficit neutral" in favor of "spending neutral". 

27 I am just shocked, shocked. As I have been saying, the only way to do this is to starve the beast - 1) end withholding, disconnecting the cost of government from the benefit isn't just distorting the economy - it is destroying our social contract, 2) let the ensuing tax revolt starve the beast.

28 Posted by: nevergiveup at December 28, 2010 02:13 PM (0GFWk)

Shorter:
A politician is a crook is a crook.

I'll stand by my first comment: if it's just Mark Kirk, what else did we really expect?  It's the Chicago way, after all.  If it's more wide-spread, then I'm done- no more R votes until the party has cleaned itself up.

As far as changing the rules to forbid it: how?  It's a letter the Congressman (or Senator, in this case) would write from his/her own office.  They can write letters to anyone about anything.  They don't have weight of law, and I'm sure there are no overt threats.

29

I don't know if the GOP is going to survive much longer. At some point, they just prove they don't care, and it's time for the party to die.

So does this mean "purity" isn't going to be hurled around here as a pejorative for much longer?

30 Hang on while I vomitmark.

31 Oh, please!  Just one more thing to get your panties in a wad over . . .

So now a lawmaker making a suggestion to an agency is as bad, in your view, as putting that suggestion into law, etching it in stone?

What idiots!

32 I was thinking maybe we should adopt a government where the people had a voice in the policies adopted by our oligarch masters. Democracy is out dated. If any of our Fascist leaders actually believed in Democracy they would replace our failed government with a direct democracy.

33 Posted by: Burn the Witch at December 28, 2010 02:18 PM (fLHQe)

Here's hoping.

34 "Anti-earmarks" - hey thats my idea

35 Incredible.  And this practice, (which suspiciously has the appearance of a kickback), falls under the definition of "legislator" how, exactly?

36
It's more than just a suggestion, dildo.

37

Yeah, this whole idea that "The GOP is abandoning its principles, we must purge more and possibly vote third party!!!eleventy!!!ronpaul!!!" just because one known RINO squish acts like a RINO squish has got to stop.

This is not Europe, we don't have party lists and don't have the power of party discipline.  If you want proportional representation, then we can start talking.

38 Politicians are like heroin addicts working in a poppy field. "I just like to see the pretty flowers every day."

39 So who do I write a letter to in order to have a couple hundred thousand dollars put in my account?

40 To be brutally honest, Kirk made a rookie mistake - he got caught. The more savvy congresscritters let their 'constituents" concerns be known in more subtle, personal communications.

41 I think its time we install Tom Friedman as dictator.

42 Posted by: Adjoran at December 28, 2010 02:19 PM (VfmLu)

When it's Mark Kirk: Senator in charge of, nothing, really?  No, not so much.  What happens if it's John Upton, Chair of the (which committee was that, again?)?

As Ace points out, this is- whether anyone admits it, or not- coersion and distinctly not in the spirit of the earmark ban.  The point of the earmark ban was not to prevent Congress from directing spending, but to prevent them from adding them to bills at the last minute to avoid debate and transparency.  This is far worse than that, if it becomes systemic.

If, for the moment, it's just Senator Kirk, then all we have to do is let our Congress people know we're watching them, and this should become "no big deal."  OTOH, if this is wide-spread, that's devastating to the principles for which the Tea Party voted in such large numbers.

43
I told you months ago we needed the GOP to draft a Bill Of  Rights For Taxpayers.

Plus, I suggested a new law that would tax congressmen for each dollar they spent.

44
Ace,

I really don't have any problem with this. 

So you can not write an agency and ask them to help your constituents?

Give me a break, this is what a member of congress is SUPPOSE to do, look after his people.

Pray tell, what is wrong with that?

It's a letter, it's not a law.

45

Well, if lettermarking doesn't carry the weight of law, then that pretty much solves the problem, doesn't it?

Doesn't it?

46

I just really can't get worked up over this.

A congressman writes a letter expressing how he thinks things should be done.  BFD.

What really is the harm here?

47 I'd like to know more

48 34 "Anti-earmarks" - hey thats my idea

Posted by: Jean at December 28, 2010 02:20 PM (G5WHn)

Sorry, Jean®, allow me to say anti-earmarks©, instead.

49 What's wrong with ear marks?

50 Ace, you are just wrong here. An earmark actually appropriates money. A lettermark is just a suggestion regarding how to spend money that has already been appropriated, that HAS to, by law, be spent. Last time I checked, it was a proper role of congress to suggest to the executive branch how to do things.

51 Posted by: Kemp at December 28, 2010 02:24 PM (JpFM9)

What's wrong with that is that a) it's not simply a "suggestion" no matter how nicely worded the letter. (Nice agency you got, here.  Be a shame if something were to... happen... to it.) and

b) legislators are supposed to enact laws in the best interest of their constituents.  The whole process got messed up the minute it became acceptable for legislators to start directing spending to their districts/States in the first place: it is not the place of the Federal Government to look after the people in Pittsburgh.

52
It's a suggestion [wink-wink], in a letter.

Does that help?

53 A congressman writes a letter expressing how he thinks things should be done. BFD. What really is the harm here? Posted by: MrShad at December 28, 2010 02:25 PM (Xqfwb) It's called coercion. "Nice little agency you got here. Real shame if anything were to happen to it."

54 The Goldman Sachs  Despotism established in 1913 is a failed model. Maybe free market capitalism with a constitutional republic might work better.

55 Posted by: eman at December 28, 2010 02:28 PM (XXyJt)

Quote thief.

56 Mr. Kirk, for example, sent a letter to the Department of Education dated Sept. 10, 2009, asking it to release money “needed to support students and educational programs” in a local school district.

Doesn't sound so bad.

57
Dear Massport,

Hey, I was just thinking, you know what'd be a cool thing to do? Build a new runway at Logan Airport. If that's something you wanna do, lemme know, I'm sure I can help you find the funding for it.

Sincerely,
Senator Kerry

58

You want solutions??? 

There was an old SNL skit or something mocking Perot when he was running for President and in the skit, Perot says let me run the country and I will get whatever percent of any budget surplus.  The profit motive... why not?

Looking like more of a sane idea all of the time.

59 He meant it as a joke, but I think Jackie Mason got it right years ago when he said that we should abolish Congressional salaries and put them all on commission. If the country makes money they get a cut of the profits, if not they get nothing.

60 Posted by: eman at December 28, 2010 02:28 PM (XXyJt) Quote thief. Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at December 28, 2010 02:29 PM (8y9MW) My client denies this and all other charges.

61

It's called coercion. "Nice little agency you got here. Real shame if anything were to happen to it."

Yeah...and in order for anythign to "happen to it" laws would have to be passed to controll behavior, or funding would have to be cut.  Those actions would have to go through the proper channels of congress.

The problem with earmarks is not neccisarily that congress was specifically directing spending as much as they were bribes for votes for far worse things.

"Yeah, sure, this law is an affront to human dignity and clearly violates the essence of personal freedom, but we can give you a few million to spend on a jobs program back home, adn that will keep your voters happy"

Multiply that by every fence sitting representative, and it all gets pretty fucked up.

But once a bill is passed, a letter form a senator is a lot less pressing.

62

"Those actions would have to go through the proper channels of congress."

Ok, I lawled.

63 Tree, blood, patriots, tyrants ... some assembly required.

64 Out : Spendulous In : Cut Liberal Pork Future

65 I think its time we install Tom Friedman as dictator.

James Taranto had some pretty good snark on Friedman:

"The New York Times's Thomas Friedman is off on 'a four-month book leave,' and we hope he gets a lot of reading done. As a parting shot, he reminds readers of a pair of rules: 'Everyone knows the first rule of holes: When you're in one, stop digging. But people often forget the second rule of holes: You can only grow your way out. You can't borrow your way out.'

Friedman doesn't know very much about holes, does he? The second rule makes no sense. How can you grow your way out of a hole? If you're an adult, you're not going to grow any taller, and if it's a narrow hole, growing fatter will only get you more stuck.

So how do you get out of a hole? Contrary to the first rule, you dig your way out. Say you're in a 10-foot-deep hole whose sides are too sheer to climb. Grab a shovel and start loosening dirt above your head. The dirt will fall onto the floor of the hole, reducing its depth. At the same time, if you dig diagonally, the side on which you're digging will become less steep as the hole becomes both shallower and wider, while its volume remains more or less constant. In no time at all you'll be able to walk out of the hole.

The third through sixth rules of holes, however, are more robust:

3. Thomas Friedman's arguments are easy to poke them in.

4. We need another Thomas Friedman book like we need one in our head.

5. Thomas Friedman doesn't know his head from one in the ground.

6. Thomas Friedman should shut his cake one.

Aw, we're sorry. That was mean. But don't worry. Friedman never got his wish to be china for a day, so we don't think he's that fragile."

66 A lettermark is just a suggestion regarding how to spend money that has already been appropriated... Posted by: Waiting at December 28, 2010 02:27 PM

Yeah, like the Godfather suggesting that one of his buttonmen offs a rival.

When members of Congress speak, people underlings listen.

Never mind. Megyn Kelly is all outrageously outraged about Michael Vick. For more than a half-hour. Nice ass legs personality, but I'm beginning to think she, like most Americans, is dumb as a box of rocks. Easily dsitracted, at least.

And therein lies the problem. We all piss and moan about "lettermarks" (or whatever the latest malfeasance from the "servants of the people" commit, but we don't do a friggin' thing about it.

The situation has gotten so far out of hand that we might as well starting worrying about rebuilding after the whole worthless edifice called "government" collapses.

67 Mr. Kirk, for example, sent a letter to the Department of Education dated Sept. 10, 2009, asking it to release money “needed to support students and educational programs” in a local school district.

Thin on details and I'll just hazard a small wager that the money needed was for some specific BS contract.

68 Off

69

who IS Mark Kirk?

 

you will know him by his mentor - John McCain - backstabbing, two-faced, amnesty-loving, Cap 'n Taxing, RINO/progressive douchebag.

70 "Those actions would have to go through the proper channels of congress." Ok, I lawled. Posted by: Burn the Witch at December 28, 2010 02:38 PM (fLHQe) Heh. Yeah, write back to Sen. Kirk telling him to fuck off. See what happens to you.

71 It's called coercion. "Nice little agency you got here. Real shame if anything were to happen to it."

Posted by: eman at December 28, 2010 02:28 PM (XXyJt)

Since the congressman was at least elected by somebody, and the agency wasn't, I think this is entirely proper as long as it is all public record.

72 Out : DADT In : DoTell Maybe in Jan the new In can be DADT

73 What happens is agencies have to fight for their big ticket, priority items - and the subcommittee votes on those programs are critical (and no one really notices). So, in order to get what they want on the big stuff they are very attentive to key congresscritters' desires for small items - it gets esp bad when the rank 'n file bureaucrats say they don't need something, then at a higher level it re-appears in the budget request.

74 Posted by: MrShad at December 28, 2010 02:36 PM (Xqfwb)

And that's why a lot of us are saying "If it's just Mark Kirk, not really a big deal."  OTOH, if it is systemic, and a lot of Republicans are doing it, it's a bad, bad thing.

Anyone willing to make the threat is much more likely to actually carry through.  Add in the "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" mentality of Congress, and you get a really big problem, really quick- if this is wide-spread at all.

For powerful members of Congress, it can get that bad even without many of them doing this- since sufficiently powerful members can just shut down certain pieces of legislation if they are not appeased.

To me, its not so much the letter itself as it is the mindset and (lack of) morals behind the letter.

75 The TEA party is Elmer Fudd and the GOP thinks it the wascally wabbit. It may be time to kill the wabbit.

76 Damn.  The GOP is damn good at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.  Either the GOP cleans house and sticks to it's principles or it's time for it to die.

Posted by: CDR M at December 28, 2010 02:23 PM (5I8G0)

Funny how we always have to kill our party rather than the Democrats.

77

Funny how we always have to kill our party rather than the Democrats.

Posted by: Oldcat at December 28, 2010 02:43 PM (z1N6a)

When you can't tell the difference, what is the difference?

78 I don't know if the GOP is going to survive much longer. At some point, they just prove they don't care, and it's time for the party to die.

Replaced with what, exactly? 

Posted by: Y-not at December 28, 2010 02:06 PM (IDL9N)

Outrage, I guess.

79

When you can't tell the difference, what is the difference?

Posted by: maddogg at December 28, 2010 02:44 PM (OlN4e)

Well by random chance we might attack the Democrats every now and then.

80 Since the congressman was at least elected by somebody, and the agency wasn't, I think this is entirely proper as long as it is all public record. Posted by: Oldcat at December 28, 2010 02:41 PM (z1N6a) Was he elected to strong-arm agencies?

81

That's IT.  Everyone, time for a road trip.  Let's all get in our RVs, pick-ups, station wagons, sedans, SUVs, what have you, and trek on down to Washington DC.  Let's throw a big, universal Tea Party on the steps of the Capitol and NOT GO HOME until our legislators learn their lesson and stop acting like a bunch of pompous douchebags. 

Since this will probably require a long Party, I recommend we all bring tents, consumables, and agree to Party in week-long shifts.

82 Posted by: Oldcat at December 28, 2010 02:41 PM (z1N6a)

What part of "private letter" says "public record" to you?

83

Ready to do the job I've proven I can do- Crypt Keeper.

84

"Funny how we always have to kill our party rather than the Democrats."

 

... because you can't fix stupid.

85 Nobody should be surprised by Kirk, he's a Rino through and through. He's a phony too, you cannot trust what he says.

86 Was he elected to strong-arm agencies?

Posted by: eman at December 28, 2010 02:45 PM (XXyJt)

Since he's from Illinois, probably yes.

87

When you can't tell the difference, what is the difference?

Posted by: maddogg at December 28, 2010 02:44 PM (OlN4e)

Well by random chance we might attack the Democrats every now and then.

Posted by: Oldcat

John Paul Jones: "I have not yet begun to fight!"

gunner's mate on Bonhomme Richard, (whilst pumping) "it'd be nice if you did, 'cause the fucking ships' about done".

88 Posted by: Oldcat at December 28, 2010 02:43 PM (z1N6a)

See, that's just it.  They're not "our party."  Or, at least, they don't see it that way.  We're seen as their "subjects."

Also, I don't ID by party, I'm a Conservative.  Currently, the only home for conservatives is the Republican party.  If they don't figure that out pretty soon, though, my conservative friends and I may just have to go elsewhere: even if that means functionally "going galt," politically speaking.

89

Funny how we always have to kill our party rather than the Democrats.

Posted by: Oldcat at December 28, 2010 02:43 PM

No, "our party" kills itself.

90 asking it to release money

Interesting choice of words here.  Releasing money implies that it is allocated but that the agency is slow rolling the distribution.  If that were the case, the letter is completely appropriate.

Does anyone have firsthand knowledge of the issue?  Their relentless hate of all things Republican, and their known predilection to spin in service of the same, makes interpreting the NYTimes is like Kremlinology.

91 Cities, counties, states, banks, businesses...failing or will fail soon.  Politicians, both Pubs and Dems, still hell bent on spending cash we don't have.  I don't see an end to this horseshit until the entire fucking shabang collapses.  Soon there will be a run on banks, and that will start the process.  It will be the end of the United States as we know it.  And you can thank Dems and Pubs for not facing facts, kicking the can down the road, a complete and utter failure on the part of leadership of both sides of the aisle.  The national nightmare is coming soon to your neighborhood, are you ready?

92 Posted by: Blue Hen at December 28, 2010 02:48 PM (1O93r)

You owe me a new laptop.

93 toby928 - alot of the money is appropriated without sufficient detail, the agencies supply the detail. Kirk is asking for a tweak in the process of allocating those funds, versus a statistical model, competitive contracts, peer reviewed grant applications, etc.

94 Looks like Ace is stirring the pot again.

95 Let's throw a big, universal Tea Party on the steps of the Capitol and NOT GO HOME until our legislators learn their lesson and stop acting like a bunch of pompous douchebags. 

Since this will probably require a long Party, I recommend we all bring tents, consumables, and agree to Party in week-long shifts.

Been there, done that, been shot by McArthur.

96

"Interesting choice of words here.  Releasing money implies that it is allocated but that the agency is slow rolling the distribution.  If that were the case, the letter is completely appropriate."

 

Excellent summary.  Ace, you listening? There's hope for you.  AlP & Squishy Ed, not so much.

To answer the question, we don't know the details, but we do already know that the topics listed in the NYT are projects already funded - thus to equate this with "earmarks" is flat out lying - there is no other word.

97

Cut taxes. Cut revenues. Cut spending. Streamline the appropriations process. Create more transparency. The rest will take care of itself.

It blows my mind how many people thought earmarks were synonomous with pork... how many thought earmarks were in non-approprations bills.  How many people thought eliminating earmarks would make any real difference. Just proves the whole earmarking debate was overrated. Earmarks are such a tiny part of the process.

Your never going to stop some politician from making sure his or her constituents get their tiny, miniscule share of the pie.

You cant stop 'log rolling'. Its been going on since the inception of the Republic. I'll vote for this if you give me that. Tit for tat. The quid pro quo. And you cant stop them from just putting a pork barrell project directly into a piece of non-appropration legislation, which is not an earmark. Legislating pork is legislating pork. Hell, the stimulus bill didnt have any earmarks.

 

98 Kirk is asking for a tweak in the process of allocating those funds, versus a statistical model, competitive contracts, peer reviewed grant applications, etc.

Is he?  Are you involved with this contract and in the know?  I only ask because I honestly can't tell a thing from the thin slander presented as news by the Times.

99

When you can't tell the difference, what is the difference?

Posted by: maddogg at December 28, 2010 02:44 PM (OlN4e)

Kill enough of theirs off, and maybe ours will get the message? Although reading shit like this, I lose hope that the Repubs will ever get the damned message.

100

What frosts my goat about this isn't that the lettermarking is happening; it's that it's still happening less than two months after the electorate delivered a mandate to the government for a halt to and a REDUCTION in spending.  It demonstrates a clear disinterest on the part of legislators who do it to ignore the will of the people.  Washington "business as always" will not cut it anymore. The American people are sick of it, and Cthulu is waking up.

If you're going to ask for money for your home districts, do it via an earmark; let your constituents see how you're spending their money and the money of other tax-paying Americans.  If you don't think your constituents will appreciate your earmarks, and you can't make a strong enough case to justify them and turn public opinion in your favor, then that's probably a good indicator that you shouldn't be requesting those earmarks in the first place.  Don't give me any of this roundabout "lettermarking" or "phonemarking" bullshit.  Put your cards on the table and let the chips fall where they will.

Most transparent administration ever. HAH!

101

Kill enough of theirs off, and maybe ours will get the message? Although reading shit like this, I lose hope that the Repubs will ever get the damned message.

Posted by: Unclefacts, Confuse A Cat, Ltd. at December 28, 2010 02:57 PM (eCAn3)

Well a couple of months ago the meme was that without electable politicians like Kirk, the GOP was doomed. Now the meme is that with guys like Kirk, the GOP is doomed.

102 This is a trial balloon by the MFM.

Pretty sure we'll "suddenly" learn that congressmen and senators drink, smoke, snort coke, and bang hookers too. And that it all started when the Tea Party won the elections.

103 NYT = lies.

104

Well a couple of months ago the meme was that without electable politicians like Kirk, the GOP was doomed. Now the meme is that with guys like Kirk, the GOP is doomed.

Posted by: Oldcat at December 28, 2010 02:58 PM (z1N6a)

Squish RINOs always want more Squish RINOs elected. I'll ask the same question I always ask squishes, when do these fuckin RINOs actually vote on the conservative side again? When it means, and costs NOTHING that's when. Otherwise they're nothing but liberals with an R after their nametag.

105 107 NYT = lies.

Posted by: sifty at December 28, 2010 03:00 PM (vn4ta)

They're like totally still printing that right?

106 I would have expected words like diverted and campaign contributor and even pet-project to be applied by the Times, if there was some thing there.

107 My parrot refused to shit on the NYT, thereby making it completely useless.

108 88 Nobody should be surprised by Kirk, he's a Rino lawyer through and through. He's a phony too, you cannot trust what he says.   FIFY.  Seriously, this is what lawyers DO.  This is why the letter on the law firm's letterhead is so magical.  Threats, intimidation, corruption -- they're the coin of the realm.   The poison in this country is the legal profession and its seed is law schools.   JD's shouldn't be in legislatures, it's a conflict of interest.  And if they do join the legislature, then they should be forcibly disbarred for life.

109

One senator is the end of the GOP ????

Did I fall asleep and miss something ?

Please ....

110 toby928 - I haven't looked into that specific letter; but those letters are written for a purpose - to push the system. If specifically appropriated funds or awarded moneys hadn't been paid; he could have submitted a request to the agencies congressional affairs staff and had an answer in 48hrs.

111 Okay, wait, hold on. How many of them are actually doing this? I'd like a hard number before I commit to the doom & gloom and death of everything mentality. Posted by: laceyunderalls at December 28, 2010 02:10 PM Exactly. Is the GOP as a whole doing this, or just the vaunted RINOs that "pragmatics" told we "purists" we had to vote for in order to "win". If it is just the RINOs, then the GOP is fine and we just need to stop listening to the "pragmatics" about needing RINOs. As we have been saying for months, all RINOs do is make people believe the entire GOP is nothing but Democrat-lite, even when there are good conservatives within the GOP. The solution is to purge the RINOs and give people a true alternative conservative choice to the socialist Democrat candidates, instead of putting up socialist-lite RINO candidates.

112

Kirk is asking for a tweak in the process of allocating those funds, versus a statistical model, competitive contracts, peer reviewed grant applications, etc.

Anything the NYT reports is suspect, yes, but at the same time I don't like legislators going to individual agencies to say, "Hey, that block grant you hand out.  How about shaving some money off of that and diverting it to this equally worthy, underfunded cause?"  Even if the reasoning is sound and the idea legitimate, in this era of wanton fiscal tomfoolery any discussion of tweaking funding streams -- be they competitive, block, etc -- needs to be public, because the opportunities for coercion and corruption are just too strong.  If the legislature is going to institute spending cuts, then that means agencies are going to lose funding.  If they lose funding, they're going to do whatever they can to try and recoup those losses, including taking the "esteemed advice" of our elected representatives in exchange for a promised funding increase.  Pretty it up in all the language you want; the average American -- myself included -- is going to see that as bribery, pure and simple.  So these conversations HAVE to be transparent.

There's nothing wrong with revamping a federal agency's process for allocating funds.  Honestly, it NEEDS to be done, because the current system is rife with problems regarding accountability, misuse of funds, croneyism, etc.  Initial conversations between legislators and agencies to brainstorm ideas for a revamp can certainly be private to start, and if that's the case here then fine.  But once those conversations progress to actual policy changes within each agency, then it's time to shine some sunlight on the process.  I want to see it all written down, I want to know what's going on and the rationale behind any changes, and if I disagree I want to be able to say so and be heard. 

And I don't want a legislator going to an agency and saying, "Hey, do you think you could tweak your allocation system a little so that (insert favored constituency here) can have a chance at getting some of that (insert competitive grant name here) money?  Every time they apply they get turned down."  Just NO.

113 If specifically appropriated funds or awarded moneys hadn't been paid; he could have submitted a request to the agencies congressional affairs staff and had an answer in 48hrs.

I can't tell from the sorry Times' reporting that the letter isn't precisely that.

114

Eh.

I am a stark deficit hawk, but I can't get too worked up over this.

I mean, really, we send reps to Washington to advocate on our behalf.  If a senator can't loby an agency for a new bridge his his/her home state, then why have senators representing different states?

As washington is currently constructed, a not-insignificant part of a senator's job is lobbying the federal government on behalf of his/her constituents.  Sorry, that's just reality.

115 On top of everything else, does the fact that the alleged letter is dated Sept 10th 2009 mean anything?  I don't think our Teaparty voices were loud enough to echo backwards through time so that Kirk could have heard them.

116 Seriously, fuck the New York Times and shame upon anyone who doesn't read their "reporting" with a jaundiced eye.

117

This "lettermarking" thing sounds to me like typical NYT GOP-bashing bullshit.

Let's be realistic: "lettermarking" and "phonemarking" have been going on since the invention of the letter and phone.  They're just Congress using Congressional influence.  That's "creative" or new?  Really?

Really, I'm surprised anyone at AOS would take this article at face value.  It's the NYFT, after all.

118 Guess that "surge-then-purge" strategy needs to be rethought.

119 #94 and #119 by toby -- I noticed the same things in the story as you. I don't see why the NYT is making of a big deal about a letter written in 2009, one year before Kirk was elected Senator and a year before he voted yes on a failed measure in the Senate to ban earmarks (on Dec 1, 2010) Secondly, the use of the word "release" does indeed imply that funds were allocated, but not yet moving into the district. IMO, no harm, no foul.

120 I want to read this alleged letter, or at least a very extended excerpt of it but neither the Times nor apparently CAGW are providing it anywhere.  It can't be confidential since they got it via FOIA.

121 I'm working up a righteous pissed off at the Paper of Record. 

122 I can't tell from the sorry Times' reporting that the letter isn't precisely that. -- toby, those requests don't look like letters - it is a form, used to be on blue paper

123 toby, those requests don't look like letters

While you've been gone I've decided the question was moot anyway.  It happened in 2009, the text itself is clearly not supportive of whatever implication the Times is trying to draw since they could have quoted it, but didn't, and because the Times writing staff is completely composed of clueless half-fuckin-wits who couldn't write clear prose if their life depended on it.

In the Court of Tobias:  Kirk, not guilty.

124 Shit I really should amend that verdict since, for all I know, Kirk is guilty as sin, he is a politician after all. 

How about, Case dismissed for lack of evidence?

125

@7: "If the GOP blows it the next 2 years, they are toast in my book."

IF?!?!?!

126

@20: " The time of purification is at hand"

And by "time of purification" you mean the ever-promised "two more election cycles," right?

127

Some of you are really missing the point here. This is a transparency issue. From the article:

These expenditures end up in a bill at the request of lawmakers or military contractors, but the source of the request does not have to be disclosed because the provisions do not meet the Congressional definition of an earmark.

This is not a problem for conservatives? Really? You're all okay with a complete lack of accountability on spending "suggestions"?

This particular letter was only uncovered because a group filed a FOIA request to get it. Is that how you want things to be--we have to file reams of paperwork requests to see what the fuck these guys are up to?

 

128 Business Plan for 2011:

Step 1: Design online 12-step program for treatment of outrage addiction.
Step 2: Contact Lace Wigs Corp. for marketing advice.
Step 3: Profit.

129 You're all okay with a complete lack of accountability on spending "suggestions"?

I just think the entire article is poorly written bullshit from which no useful information can be extracted.

130

@104: "What frosts my goat about this isn't that the lettermarking is happening; it's that it's still happening less than two months after the electorate delivered a mandate to the government for a halt to and a REDUCTION in spending."

To be fair, Tom DeLay said that there was nothing left that could be cut about 6 years ago.  No one can mandate the government to do anything it doesn't want to do, and it will never, ever cut spending in a meaningful way.  Neither party wants to, so that's that.

131

I just think the entire article is poorly written bullshit from which no useful information can be extracted.

Okay. That's a reasonable position to take.

But I don't get the people arguing, "Hey, it's their jobs to oversee spending."

Well, yes it is. But the process shouldn't be hidden from their constituents.

132

Ace: The GOP has been granted a two-year probation. It seems they are hellbent on violating the terms of probation and going back to political prison.

Me:  Don't we just have to apply the electrodes and throw the switch on the GOP?  It is irredeemable.

133

I don't care what Rush says, a third party seems inevitable. Now a days it seems that all the asshats in D.C. are 'ruling class' yobs with absolutely no ethics or morals. We've sent a few fresh faces into the snake pit. How long until they are suborned?

I look at the 2010 election a lot like the collapse of th USSR - very nice. But then some years later the entire legislature is suborned by rasPutin and his cronies - the old 'apparatchicks'. The wheel turns and we're right back where we started.

134 Mark Kirk needs to be lettermarked for one term until further notice.

135 Asics running shoes are the best products.you can get the best Asics Gel DuoMax in our store, and the asics gel nimbus are the hotest shoes in these days

136

Welcome to the real world.

There's ALWAYS been all sorts of ways that congressmen can and do affect specific expenditures,a nd y'all have been very naive to think that just addressing one of those ways, line items in the law, would solve the problem.  Money always finds a way.

Absolutely, Kirk is a squish and is OK only by comparison the the Dem alternatives Illinois would produce (would you really rather it be Obama's good buddy, Giannoulias the crooked banker?), but if you think earmarking is a problem worth fighting, believe me, it's a full-time and never-ending game of whack-a mole.

137 New Dragon Blood Jasper beads Dragon Blood Jasper beads