More Lawmakers Give Up Earmarks

[Terri]

By SAM HANANEL
Associated Press
January 22, 2008

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A growing number of lawmakers in Congress are voluntarily giving up one of the biggest perks of office -- at the risk of alienating their constituents.

More than 20 members of the House and Senate have vowed not to seek any new earmarks for their districts, saying they won't take advantage of a system pilloried for wasteful spending on projects such as the Alaskan ''bridge to nowhere'' and a teapot museum in North Carolina.

''There's a growing awareness that the system is broken and we aren't going to fix it unless some of us start taking a stand,'' said Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., a third-term congressman who decided last year to stop requesting so-called pork-barrel projects.

More

[Confused]

Do you think they are hearing the subtle distant drumroll of possible revolution (in the polls) getting closer?

[markchla]

The bravest of our armed forces receive the Congressional Medal of Honor.
Unless the author of post #2 is correct, these 20 members of congress should get an equivalent to that.

Oh, wait, that wouldn't work, would it?

[Joe Lee]

Great news:
Texas Legislators: FOLLOW THE LEAD !!!!

[makamends]

Gee, how is Mitch McConnell going to get re-elected? He's been advertising himself as the biggest pork producer since Albin Barclay.

[Rubicon]

If Congress ends the current policies of awarding earmarks, I will be seriously surprised.
While I agree each state can best determine where dollars are to be spent, versus allowing bureaucrats to do so when money is plowed into large federal programs instead, that political clout now determines who gets how much, is even worse.
Perhaps they could actually allow the money to "STAY HOME" rather than collecting it in taxes so they or a federal bureaucrat decides how to spend it?! Gosh, what a concept!
The problem is, Congress has access to way too much money & with no moral conscience, they spend away like its no big deal! If the tax system was revised and money was not collected by bureaucrats & politicians, actual people could decide how best to spend what was their money in the first place!
During this campaign season, one of the questions we must pester all candidates for all public offices is, "will you end earmarks and finally bring Congressional spending under control?" "If not, why should we elect you to waste our money? We can do the same thing & have more fun at it!"
Oh well, its nice to dream!

[Freckles]

I am from Missouri, you gotta SHOW-ME. I, as a rule, also do not like democRATS. However, I think Claire McSkills may be an exception. Way to go Claire!! Now will all the other congressmen follow their lead? Also, will those who are doing this get reelected after their local MSM's get through ostercizing them for not bringing home the bacon. Hey Kit, you keep the University of Missouri happy by your earmarks and we both know that 99.9% of the University of Missouri are democRATS. Kit, you do not get reelected by being a Republican, at alone a conservative Republican, you keep getting reelected by being a RHINO.

[SewingSusie]

Yet Kline has faced criticism back home, where some local officials weren't pleased to find out how much his stand is going to cost. A majority of commissioners on the Scott County Board in Shakopee, Minn., said they were disappointed that Kline wouldn't seek earmarks for a new county road needed to link Interstate 35W with a busy regional highway.
''I told him I'd prefer that he continue to work within the system while fighting it,'' said Jon Ulrich, a commissioner. ''The projects that we were requesting were very worthy projects.''
Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill, a freshman Democrat, is facing similar scrutiny for her refusal to request earmarks during her first year in office. Fellow Democratic Rep. Emanuel Cleaver of Kansas City said her stance is costing his constituents money that will just end up benefiting people outside Missouri.
''The reality is if I decided not to fight for earmarks, tax dollars paid by residents of my district would not go to pay off our national debt,'' Cleaver said. ''The money would merely go to another state.''

I'm not against road building and development, but I don't feel like I should have to pull my few hard-earned $$ out of my pocket to pay for a road that I won't be using, probably ever in my life. Let those who will benefit from the road, pony up.

McCaskill defends her decision, saying other worthy government programs that have broader appeal get slashed while the cost of earmarks continues to soar.
''Is the program for Head Start more important than an individual roof on an individual day care center?'' McCaskill said. ''What we should be doing is focusing the money on the programs that touch the most people in the most efficient and effective way.''

What we should be doing is eliminating unconstitutional intrusions of the Fed. Gov't into what should be state and local matters.
Ah yes, the nanny-state. Womb to tomb, we'll take care of you. Just give us your entire income, and we'll see that you're set for life.
Just like in the Soviet Union.

[candles]

More than 20 members of the House and Senate have vowed not to seek any new earmarks for their districts, saying they won't take advantage of a system pilloried for wasteful spending on projects such as the Alaskan ''bridge to nowhere'' and a teapot museum in North Carolina.

Does anyone have a list of these 20+ members not seeking any new earmarks? They are seeking no new earmarks, but for how long?
Some of the earmarks I was against include the repair of a swimming pool a congress person damaged when he/she was young, the peanut center (or what ever it was called) to named just a few.

[schillerbjr]

20+ members giving up Earmarks is a good start!
What about the other 415 members????????????