You have to start somewhere.

It's something that they can agree to do. They have to show they are doing something and in a field of really bad options eliminating earmarks may look relatively easy.

"And unless people like me show the American people that we're willing to follow through on small or even symbolic things, we risk losing them on our broader efforts to cut spending and rein in government."

And with a symbolic quote they shut the American people up and it's back to business as usually. States will still get federal $$$ for projects and spending will still happen. We will see a reduction in social programs (vilify it if you want, but they are not all bad), tax cuts (when we cannot afford them..yes that goes for everyone) and corporations still pouring money into financing candidates to influence policy making. Score one for politricking as usual.

cut the military budget

Now there's a way to save some serious money, but good luck getting it done.

For a start, I'd suggest closing all foreign military bases except for those in the middle east, central Asia, South Korea and the Philippines. In this day and age of massive deficits, why do we need active military bases in Germany and Japan?

Second, end the war in Afganistan as quickly and efficiently as possible. The Taliban were not our enemies prior to our invasion of their country. Al Qaeda should be the focus.

Next, instead of massive and extremely expensive deployments, utilize small mobile special forces units to track and eliminate Al Qaeda targets including the big one, Bin Ladin, if we can find him.

In sum: Bring the rest of the boys (and girls) back home, saving money and lives as a result.

Please understand that ear marks are Congressional Lobbying to pass multi bullion$ legislation.

Complain about Business and Union lobbying and then give the politicians our money to lobby withiln the Beltway. Bad policy.

With no compromise and no ear marks, we should see no legislating come from this congress.

I think that the issue of ear marks is a demonstration of seriousness. This is a good start, but let's see what the deficient reduction commission finally puts on the table. THEN we'll see how this progresses. We're all watching and BOTH Parties need to step up (or drop the BS ... depending on your perspective) to find big cuts.

It's not about the tiny bit of money we save. It's about Senators and Congressmen voting on policies based only on principles, not on legalized bribes.

It ensures that Trillion dollar crap bills like Obamacare don't get passed.

It's OK, let the rightwingers finish put into practice their sophomoric economic theories so the US economy can be completely destroyed and that way give everyone a chance to start all over again.

First, these rightwingers and their Wall St. buddies got the unregulated economy they wanted and bankrupt the country by saturating the market with real state property and toxic loans. Once people got in debt they spend less money and in turn businesses are suffering.

So out of the three sources of money (consumers, business and government) two are pretty much out of the game.

Now comes the second part of the rightwing economic theory: Cut out the third source of money by cutting back or doing away with government programs while lowering taxes for the people who own or control over 50% of the money in the US.

What geniuses! My goodness, I'm so freaking impressed! Yeah, finish suffocating the economy altogether.

This is as if FDR lost the 1932 elections to Hoover allowing Hoover to continue the same policies that brought on the Great Depression!

Oh, well, I suppose Americans can eat cake while they wait for their politicians to come to their senses.

You have to start somewere is right. All these earmarks add up $$$$$$$. Until this government gets its priorities in order and the deficit down cuts on all fronts need to be made and B%#@*ing about it won't get things done. Either straighten up and fly right or pinks slips for everyone. If we the American people can stick to a budget I don't see why this government can't do the same....

Well about time, the red states were getting the most earmarks...so its the red states people can bitch and moan to themselves.

McConnell brought home 51 million last year, while Harry Reid brought home 27 million.

In the top 20 states to bring home the most bacon, only 6 were blue states.

Are you forgetting, most "ear marks" are for projects in states, that help create local jobs. I realize, some are frivolous but basically, I would rather see Americans getting jobs, than Black Water, etc. Let's face it, Mitch and all of congress, are conning the middle class. By making us believe, they are going to be fiscally responsible. The truth is, they are going to have us bend over and hold our ankles, and ram the continuation, of the Bush tax cuts for the rich, up our derrieres! 700 billion dollars, of loans! Monies barrow from China or elsewhere, to pay for the richest people to invest and put more of our money in the Caymans. In the mean time, the dollar ninety-eight, those of us, in the so-called middle class; will pay our bills, buy new cars, and keep the economy going, such as it is. Mitch is serving us, a pig in a poke! Anyone else feel like we are the "marks" in a shell game? I speaking about the Democrats as well as the Republicans.

Do you have any idea how catestrophic it would be to the economy of this nation if the department of defense budget got slashed? The trickle down effect through the supply chain would be detremental to our economy. It would affect hundreds of thousands of people. Not just those that make "tanks" for battle in war. It would affect paper product manufacturers, to rubber, steel, food, clothing.. the list is tremenously long....Do your research before making such generalized statements.

and why do you feel the need to use the f word in any general discussion even if you only allude to it

thats very shabby

What a fraud this ass clown is! Say what the teabaggers want to hear...until it comes to badly needed projects in their own states. They will never be able to cut spending the way the teabaggers want. Cut spending here, there, but you damn sure better not touch my social security or medicare. So what are you going to cut, Mitch, ole boy?

I agree that the earmarks are a very, very small thing but they should go. Many government agencies and programs should also go like the Dept. of Education and H.U.D. just to name two. All social help (welfare) programs should also be means tested, drug tested and reduced to just that level which is necessary to help those who are unable to help themselves. All the ones on those programs who are milking the system because they think their neighbors owe them a living should be shown the door. Social Security and Medicare should be means tested (personally I think that if you have a personal retirement income that is twice what the average U.S. household earns in a year then you should not get either). There should be no social services for any illegal invader. There are many more government things which need eliminated, downsized or major reform but this space is too dang small so I will let this suffice for now but you get the picture. Regarding the military...it should be made to be more cost effective but there should be no cuts. Peace through strength does work...if your leaders (like the President) have the constitutional fortitude to stand up to the dictators and terrorists of the world (instead of playing patty cake with them and apologizing for the "terrible" neighbor we have been to the world). Bah Humbug!

This is a mini start, every dollar saved is a step in the right direction. It is my understanding that our new house speaker will not be traveling in style, but will travel commercial airlines (not on a private jet paid for by tax payers). This to me is a good sign that some congressmen get it and that wasteful spending will no longer be tolerated by either party. If Ms Peloski wants to be the minority house leader then she better learn that Americans aren't Astroturf and they don't want her spending our tax dollars on her luxury private jets, unless they are at her own expense.

I agree with one of the comments made...that military spending needs major adjustments, as does the accumulation of so many bureaucrats. If we had a flat tax in this country there would be little need of a large IRS bureaucratic agency. Taxes would be more fair to everyone.

What I am most concerned about is the devaluing of our dollar and super inflation. Food keeps going up, gas keeps going up, while real estate and jobs are tanking. I plan to have me a little land for farming in case the prices of food go sky high. Land, seeds, and the ability to grow your own food may be the way to survive in the coming days unless we get our government to stop their printing money to pay for the debt they have ran up. So all this bickering over who's fault this debt is is a moot point, both parties are guilty!

Cut the military right how about some of our out of control "entitlement programs".

Why would anyone on this vine complain about eliminating earmarks. The modest cut in spending will send an important message. Additional cuts need to be made, but this can only be viewed as very positive. Consider the alternative.

He's no better or worse than the rest of the liars, be it Republicon, OR Democrook.

Bull. Leave the money in the States the money came from. Why funnel it through the Federal Government? Where's the efficiency in that? And, by the way, why should some States have their income redistributed to another State's projects. I guess you want 49 to bail out California for its failures. Forgetaboutit.

when you gonna get it, big money in aisa, china, india, saudia arabia,etc... there goes your job. dont forget africa just around the corner for cheap labor. we cant compete with that. we used to rule the world. thanks to big profits, we got no job. thank you private sector and gov. for lettin it happen. global economy, great. wanna change it dont buy nothin that aint made in usa. cant find underwear, dont wear it!!! dont like it, just screwin your kids and screwin youself. all this crap about entitlelments, earmarks, social security, medical or medicare etc... hey I paid for that stuff just a distraction from the real problems.If no ones got a job, then no ones payin taxes, if no ones payin taxes then the system takes a dump. them folks over there aint payin it. These people and corporations that love the global economy are rippin off americans and they should be treated like it dont buy it or there stuff.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but earmarks on a proposal can add billions of dollars. Remember the "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska? It would benefit less than 1000 people, millions of dollars from the US budget, not their state budget. There's a highway in TN for the benefit of tourism, US budget, not TN paying for it. So many of these earmarks are added on to important acts, and at the midnight hour, that our senators and congressmen aren't even aware of them. Have you ever read these proposals? The local newspaper prints a few.To begin with there is so much legaleeze in them that after reading them I think I know which way I'd vote. After the proposal the newspaper explains how a yes vote and a no vote would result in, and I find that what I thought the proposal would accomplish is just the opposite of the way I would have voted. I am against the US government paying for projects that benefit just one particular state. If a state, or county for that matter, want something done for it's benefit, then that state should pay for it, not everybody in the country. Would state taxes be increased? You bet, but the federal taxes wouldn't. And if federal money isn't involved in a project, the state can do what is best for the people in each state.

There are good earmarks and bad earmarks. Not all are wasteful or bad.

The practice is abused, that is certainly true. But banning them altogether seems outright silly.

First, it won't make a perceptible difference in the deficit. And moreover, there are many other pet projects that come into other bills, like defense bills for example, that are much larger sums of money, that won't be affected. The particular ways that defense spending are allocated often represent the worst kinds of waste and abuse, and that will still go on. Both parties do it.

I don't know what the answer is, but I doubt an outright ban is a good idea. It's more symbolic than anything. If the Republicans are serious about the deficit, which I doubt because they never have been in the past, then they can do something meaningful like 1) increase the retirement age, 2) tax benefits for the wealthy, and/or 3) let some of the Bush tax cuts expire.

They could also cut defense spending, which is another big chunk that might have a real impact, but might mean we can't fight 1-2 never-ending wars.

The fact that they are focusing on symbolic gestures like banning earmarks, which are rather inconsequential, rather than focusing on the big-ticket spending, suggests to me that they are, as usual, not serious about deficit reduction.

Unless a bunch of lazy, aging teabaggers decide that they are willing to wait to 69 to retire, we are going to be saddled with debt until the economy recovers fully and some of the tax cuts expire.

earmarks are just a way to funnel money to a congressmans state in exchange for a vote . so votes are bought.. congress salaries are not much to begin with compared to the private sector jobs.very few congressman and woman have only their congressional pay for a salary. no i do not know what the solution is but it sounds like you don't either.yeah real wise decision lets just cut military spending .so our soldiers don;t have the nessecary tools to fight the terrorist, then we may as well just pass the key to the country to the terrorist..and while you are saying cut military spending kyla why don't you thank a soldier for defending your freedom to make stupid remarks like that. we should NEVER cut our defence budget.

Florida- the last time we ever had a balanced budget was under a Republican Congress! It was and always has been big spending Dems that seem to blow it up. Look at history- pretty telling.

You're right though, there are good and bad earmarks- but we are now faced with a situation like no other- we simply can not spend! Roads will have to wait, projects will have to wait. You do it in your own household (at least I hope you do)- if there's no money- you can't have it.

We need the government to understand the same principle. If the bank account is empty- they can't spend on credit. I want a big screen TV- but I can't afford it right now- so I wait.

Also- asking those that pay all the taxes to simply pay more is obscene!! 50% of all the people pay 100% of the taxes- making them pay more for those who don't is, simply put, stealing!! Success in America should NEVER be punished- it's what sets apart from the rest of the world. You punish that, and it will quickly come that there will not be enough successful people to pay the taxes you want them to...

The US spends more money on our Military than the sum total of all other industrialized countries COMBINED! If I'm not mistaken, Defense spending is about 55% of our Federal budget. If there's not hundreds of Billions of dollars that can be trimmed without weakening our nation, then I must have been born yesterday.

I agree that it could be a good program, but like any power you give the goverment they will abuse it and make you regret it.

One penny on $13 Trillion is a pretty good start!! $22 million on testing corn is ludicrous!! By the way most of these are leftovers from the wild spending of GWB!! if I remember correctly there was a balanced budget when he went to live in Washington!!

Earmarks are known as "pork" for a reason. I choose to believe it's because the taxpayer is getting "porked". They should be banned for good.

Now if we could just stop paying out billions to farmers to NOT grow food!

Yes, earmarks by themselves are a small percentage of spending, but you gotta start somewhere. Don't bash an idea just because it was put forth by "that other party".

Don't get me wrong, lots of other spending cuts are needed and I think taxes will need to be raised - but 10 billion here and 10 billion there, and eventually you add up to meaningful cuts :). You don't have to do one big trillion dollar cut.

MikeyMike for President!

If these bozos don't bring money back into their states/districts, what do we need them for?

A perfect example of Military over-spending is companies like Blackwater. These companies get much more money to do the same exact job our military personal does. So stop giving our money away to private security companies and we will same billions.

It is my thinking, ear marks should go to repairing the infrastructure. The roads and bridges in my state have needed repairs due to snow, ice and salt damage; for a long time. I am for education 100 % because, the more high school and college graduates we have, the less people we have on welfare. Also, our society, as a whole, would benefit from educated people, who can provide themselves; a better quality of life.

I agree, America does not need military bases all over the world. Cutting military spending, would save billions. But, I would not agree with, abandoning those who have served us, by eliminating continued medical care and education for them. Soldiers have certainly earned these and they are not entitlements, they are merits.

DO you realize congress, has actually broken the law, by having different rules for their medical and retirements? The constitution states, they should not have a different benefit package then the American people. Having a seat in Congress or the Senate, should not be a career but a asterisk, on ones resume.

I received one of those emails, you "send to all your friends"; but it premise was worthy of reading. The law should be changed, so that there is one term for President, Senate and congress. Just think about all the money and time; politicians waste, running for office, when they could be actually working for those who elected them. Also, lobbyist would have a more difficult time getting into the pockets of politicians, who have nothing to lose, because they are only going to have one term. Of course, I realize, there are those scoundrels, who spend their time, thinking of ways to promote evil instead of good. Gee, someone in this world, has to have a conscience and a heart. Maybe, those people are just too nice to run for office.

I have become so disillusioned by all of this hate and mud slinging. But I keep voting because, I am an idealist. Maybe one day, we will have another "Honest Abe." Or else, I will die and won't have to worry about it anymore.

Jessica, Nevada ranks #13 in earmarks whereas Kentucky ranks #20. So basically you are blowing smoke.

http://www.cagw.org/reports/pig-book/2010/rankings.html

In general, the larger states with the fewest people get the most. End all earmarks and pork by preventing those items to be attached to other bills. Make separate bills out of them and vote accordingly.

Try to get over the blue and red state thing. That is about as good as playing the race card.

I agree wholeheartedly, cut the size of the congress. It is insane that we should have over 400 elected reps. The salaries are at least 174,000 annually plus their staff & office expenses. This needs to be trimmed back. Is there a law that says that we need over 400 congressmen/women? All corporations have scaled back to the point that each employee is doing the work of at least twice what they should be doing. The Fed Gov. should be doing the same.

This guy scares me.....The Grand Wizard of Wrestling and The Classy Freddie Blasie are about to become men of too much power....

to Tcro, You are exactly correct. The earmarks represent a drop in the bucket but, this makes it appear that the Reps are trying to do something.

earmarks are more than just actual dollars spent. They represent time lost in negotiating for a yes vote on major legislation and quite possibly having major legislation never getting out of commitee.

Perhaps allocating a set amount of funds (regardless of population) to each state and then have the state determine how those funds should be spent would be more appropriate. Let the states lobby for federal grants based on value given to the public if more funds are wanted.

you must be taking political science or have taken it. earmarks are abused and do more bad than good. research the big bailout obama did. the reason it didnt pass is no earmarks/pork barreling. either people got their favors they needed and promised their supporters or they will vote against it. 1st time they voted against it. 60 minutes , usa today and several other reputable entities found roughly 800 million dollars. a few examples a corp. farm that showed a 1 percent profit loss , a factory thats makes childrens arrows got around 1.2 million dollars and many other b.s. like that added up quickly. im sure your political support for these criminals extorting and using our government thanks you for your support. are you one of the earmark benificiaries or just mis informed by your local propaganda mongers

Earmarks are used to bribe voters to support the incumbent. The Left has been doing it for years, both parties are quilty.

Yeah...I see it. But I don't believe it. I don't believe ANYTHING they say they'll do. Not anymore.

Interesting...do you recycle? i sure don't because what in the world difference is a few cans or plastic bags going to make? We're on the same wavelength, bro.

I think we should cut the insurance policy of the Congress and Senate, and let them fed for themselves.

I think we should execute anyone in congress or senate that votes to give the riches people an extension of tax relief.

I think John McCain should be impeached over Don't asked Don't tell, he's a liar!!

How about a REAL big one. Do away with the IRS (as we know it). Enact a flat tax on income (if you make this much you owe that much). People that should pay more will pay more and people that need assistance will get it. The wealthy in this country will cry foul but the heck with them. This would streamline SOOOooooooooo many government entities and do away with the vast majority of loopholes in our current tax system (once again I hear the wealthy crying foul). This could be augmented with a federal sales tax but the emphasis should remain on the FLAT TAX!

The big problem here... Getting Congress to do what's best for the country as a whole (isn't that always the problem). Tax accountants would scream, attorneys would scream, big business would scream and I would LOVE it!!!!

cut the military budget

Now there's a way to save some serious money, but good luck getting it done.

Not a good idea. So, yes, good luck trying to get that done. Cutting the military budget was a bad idea. Cutting the intelligence budget led up to the current mess. It is pretty bad when elementary schools had better equipment than the FBI and CIA did at some locations.

For a start, I'd suggest closing all foreign military bases except for those in the middle east, central Asia, South Korea and the Philippines. In this day and age of massive deficits, why do we need active military bases in Germany and Japan?

Yet another bad idea. It is much more cost effective and a more ideal situation when an emergency arises and there is a need for deployment. There is that and the massive costs that are involved in "spur of the moment" operations that require overseas deployment.

Second, end the war in Afganistan as quickly and efficiently as possible.

I am all for that.

The Taliban were not our enemies prior to our invasion of their country. Al Qaeda should be the focus.

No, they just had al-Qaeda training camps in their country and refused to give al-Qaeda up when requested by the US government. That made the Taliban our enemy. They also were warned and were given ample time to comply. They refused. Their fault, not ours.

Next, instead of massive and extremely expensive deployments, utilize small mobile special forces units to track and eliminate Al Qaeda targets including the big one, Bin Ladin, if we can find him.

In sum: Bring the rest of the boys (and girls) back home, saving money and lives as a result.

Actually, these massive, high-tech deployments have tended to save many of the soldiers' lives. They are expensive but consider the alternative. People today complain about the few thousands of soldiers who have lost their lives over nearly ten years. But, consider that in D-Day, well over 10,000 people were killed in one day with a low-tech solution. Seriously, look it up.

What we need is to work efficiently with the help of those whose lands are "occupied" by us, as well as the Pakistani government, to clear out these terrorists and wipe them off the face of the map. I put the word "occupied" in quotes because it is not really an occupation, notwithstanding the Media and far-leftist propaganda to the contrary.

2 words. TERM LIMITS!

The only problem Kyla, is that both the Democrats and Repubs have been stalling so many bills in the past until they could jam a half million earmarks into them for their own states. Pretty soon you have a 3 page bill that was so stuffed with earmarks, that the bill would turn into this 10,000 page gorilla that nobody could agree on. Howw about a simple one page bill to cut taxes? How about a simple 1 page bill to create jobs? How about a simple 1 page bill to bolster education? These are pretty simple things that any group of people from whatever demographic could come up with, if they only work together! But here's the rub, now how will these politicians justify their exorbitant pay and retirement and benefits when they can't bicker for months and drag their tails on a bill forever! All I can say is, it doesn't matter which party you're from if you wipe out the middle class, because the next step is Anarchy and I truly would not like to see this for our country.

peppy

Interesting premise on Obamacare but quite frankly how do you call it a Trillion Dollar Crap bill when even the CBO (both parties consider to be the honest broker; or until it is not in the respective parties best interest to believe the figures) shows long-term savings. I would like to hear what kind of Health Care reform should have been done.

How about 7-800 billion in lost income and deficit caused by the Bush tax cuts? How about 2 wars that were not budgeted or paid for? Obamacare...give me a break...at least it was intended to help our failing health care system. When I hear Boehner claim we have the best Health Care system in the world it truly should cause alarm.

But to the other point...less than .05% of the budget is for earmarks. This is simply a gesture and has no real consequence other than impact down to the state level. It should be real interesting when your state and local congressman can no longer deliver the goods to help your state out.

It will curb some of the favours for a short while until the congressman are able to figure a way around it so they can bring home the bacon for their constituents.

I can guarantee that reduction in tax income and programs at the federal level simply results in raising taxes and trying to fill the gap at the state level. Whatever we get as savings at the federal level will undoubtedly result in increases in state and local taxes.

I am certainly not advocating trying to reduce is a bad thing. We need to cut the military, regulate entitlements to close abuse, and create a fair tax system that does not create loop holes for the ultra wealthy and corporations. Creating tax incentives for corporations to ship jobs overseas has to stop!

Tax cuts for the top 1-2% that do not stimulate the economy is crazy. They did not create jobs with the TAX cuts they have now and have increased their wealth gap even more because they simply do not re-invest and trickle down economics has proven over the last 25 years to be invalid.

The most prosperous times in our history were when the tax rates on the wealthy were the highest.

"That's one small step for man", but at least it's in the right direction.

Trankonia, you remarks are very compelling and I agree. As a new retiree, I find all of this "slight of hand" on the right and the left, as mind boggling. I am a college graduate and have paid attention to politics all my life. I fear, no matter where one stands, in the politcal area, only those with $$$$ will be heard.

When the "Watergate" hearings were aired during the 70's, I had a chance to observe both parties. Not only did I admire, Sam Irvin, but also, GOP. Senators, Sam Nunn, Fred Thompson, and all the others as well. They were likable, intelligent men. And I felt they did their homework and were fair.

Today, is a different time. Many of the politicians and ignore and even confessed to not reading many of the bills they pass.

I believe, because of the Internet and fast communication, maybe, the Congress should be abolished and voters, should be able to vote on issues. Why do we pay these people to continue to corrupt our country, while we say, thank you sir, may I have another.

I am not frightened for myself, but I am for my children and grand children.

China's military budget is about 1/7 of ours. Russia's is about 1/10 of ours. We could easily cut the military budget to one-fifth of what it is and still be perfectly capable of defending ourselves. We need to get all our soldiers home. We're not the world's policemen so if something happens in Japan, let Japan take care of it. If something happens in Germany let the Germans take care of it. The only country we have to worry about invading is is Mexico, because they're already doing that. If we redeployed all our troops curently on foreign soil to the Mexican border with orders to shoot all invaders on sight we'd have no more illegal alien problem.

We need to stop subsidizing corporations, especially farmers who are paid not to grow food. We need to end the redistribution of wealth from one state to the next through pork. Let the states keep the money in the first place.

And those on the left don't get off easy either. End Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, government backed student loans, and every other department or program that is unconstitutional. That includes Obamacare. With all these savings (trillions of dollars) we can afford to fix the roads (which is arguably one of the constitutional duties of Congress).

But most importantly we need to repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments and eliminate the Federal Reserve.

Mitch McConnell Backs Earmark Ban After Requesting Nearly $1 BILLION In Pork

Go to the Ditch Mitch website to find out how he was bragging about "bringing the bacon home" - vote for me because of all the pork I brought to Kentucky.

Here is his longterm flip flop record on pork: http://porkbusters.org/earmark_senator.php?id=33

What can I say? When Mitch figures out that he is in the heart of the Tea Party America and the Tea Party is against pork projects, of course he will also be against pork projects. A pathological, sociopathic liar. Make no mistake, he is among the worst of the very worst porkers in congress. And that includes members of both parties.

The Tea Party now needs to confront incumbent hard core corrupt Republican leaders like Mitch and John Boehner on issues such as pork projects, lobbyist bribery, selling out the public to represent billionaire corporations, etc...

kyla 550305- if you want to eliminate wasteful spending, the military and congressional budgets is not the place to do it. first of all, if you were to cut congressional staffs to one or two and lower their salaries, you would be reducing the deficit about as much as what they are doing with removing earmarks, but probably less. secondly, you would make it impossible to reach your representatives or hear back from them and even less would get done in washington because no one would be working there. reps and senators need people to help them with constituent contact and to maintain connections with their home states and regions. the workload would be impossible for one or two people. finally, the comment about reducing the military budget is two-fold. i agree that we need to get out of iraq and afghanistan, but we need to do so in an effective and timely manner. leaving cold turkey will not do us any good. after that, military funding should be kept at its normal peacetime level for not only the sake of national security, but also the development of technology. sitting around and doing nothing and maintaining the status quo is not how you generate progress.

An Earmark is a type of Bribe in many cases. Please vote for my bill and I will build an Airport terminal at your existing airport. No you don't need it now, but we'll call it the Congressman Smith Terminal and everyone will know your name when it comes to reelection time. You can put an Earmark in a bill that I am not crazy about in the future and return the favor. All in all we spend not only the earmark, but also spend the money on the big bill that would not have passed if I had not put an enticement in it.

That has been killing us for years and built a HUGE DEFICIT. You can only do that with other peoples money...No one in their right mind would do that with their own money!!!!

How do they now take ideas the President has been pushing and make them their own. When the President says it, bad, bad,bad. When the replublicans say it, good idea?

Actually when the Great Depression hit Hoover quickly abandoned his laissez faire policies for FDR-type policies. Between the two socialists the Great Depression dragged on until WWII. He should have done like Coolige did in 1920 and cut taxes and spending. His recession was over in about a year and a half.

One percent over 20 years is ~20 percent... they are 20+ years too late. Congress should have led the nation and not let things get so irresponsible in the first place and having us pay for their mistakes. Their misguided regulations - - or lack thereof - - are supporting the rich and powerful special interests and is being passed on to the poor and middle class like a tax. Sneaky. How much is our share of Government Motors, Wall Street Bailout, Fanny/Freddy Bailout, Bank bailout worth? And their lack of oversight at deep-sea drilling with shallow-sea technology at the BP spill site cost us how much? And then they effectively shut down shallow-sea exploratory drilling when that has never been a problem. Gee, with this track record, I wonder if the nuclear industry is in a similar situation... they are still storing spent rods longterm at the nuke plant when they were supposed to develop a longterm storage site many many many years ago. Yuck... this is typical Congress... wait til they have to do something and claim they saved the world after they spend 50% more to fix the problem under crisis conditions when their ineptitude caused the problem in the first place.

What a load of steaming cow dung in the winter. Earmarks are insidious plain and simple. The excuse you hear from congress is that it would take way too long to give a vote on every single one. Horse Hockey!

It is just pure laziness. Not to mention sneaky.

How did the bridge to nowhere get funded. You got it earmark. Why because the vote was a bribe. I get a bridge you get my vote. No bridge no vote. Yes a nice thing for Alaska but at what cost to the rest of us.

I want to see how my senator and representative vote on each and every bill that spends our money. Every one! Why do I have to accept less?

Are they scared to let the people see where our money is going? You bet your sweet rosy red butt they are!

Anyone who defends earmarks are on the side dishonesty and deciet. But they wil not admit it because they make their money getting it spent their way.

We all know it is wrong. If you make money from earmarks you should feel dirty. But then crooks never admit to a crime.

Maybe besides cutting they should kill a few programs. Why do we still have a Bureau of Indian Affairs? Obama's Budget for 2010 was 2,662,343,000

To everyone that thinks we need to cut the Defense budget: Who will protect your a#@? Perhaps we should send you over there with no resources. WONDERFUL MEN AND WOMEN HAVE DIED SO YOU CAN HAVE THE FREEDOM TO TO NOT SUPPORT THEM!!!!! People like you should be deported. You don't deserve to live here.

and the amount you save by cutting those staffs and salaries are about 1% of the earmarks total. But it all adds up. Go ahead, cut the military budget, a favorite target of the libs, then start learning Arabic and studying the Quran because you're gonna need it.

You have to start somewhere

This is a baby step on a journey of a million miles. When you need supersonic, triphibious transport, this counts for nothing. It is a convenient distraction and will dupe millions of people into believing that something has been accomplished.

Corporate purchase of political campaigns and lobbyists drafting bills virtually ensures more of what Chinless Mitch calls "waste and out-of-control spending."

As for the teabaggers who think banning earmarks means anything, the boys in K Street and Wall Street saw you suckers coming a mile away.

Amen Jahmekahn. This is the same flip flop politics we see every 4 years. The party thats in is for big govt, the party thats out opposes it. Then they flip sides once the power changes parties. I have to hand it to them, they sell this line to the ignorant public every time. I still hear people talk about how great Bush, Obama, Clinton all are/were and how they did what they thought was right. I find it hilarious that people still fall for the old tele-prompter reading politicians lies in the soap opera we call DC. I keep pinching myself hoping I'll wake up.

I like the people who say it's a start. I really do. I like to hear optimists. My take is that earmarks will be a symbolic token, and if it passes (this has already been said by quite a few different pundits, so it's not my idea) that money will find its way back to state projects by other channels. And once they sacrifice the earmarks, agreement will stop, and no real cuts will happen. Just look at the outcry on both sides when Obama's panel let slip some of their ideas. It's pretty even pain across the board, but each side rears up and refuses to contanence change for their side. Without real cooperation and a will to bit the bullet by everyone, no substantial cuts/revenue increases will happen. It's like watching a game of chicken between a minivan and an suv with a load of children in each car.

This is a SMOKE SCREEN to divert attention from the republican Tax breaks for the wealthy that the Gop intends to extend...

They turtle caved to deminted for publicity...Politics Daily has the report out that this is NOT A REPUBLICAN MANDATE--which we knew but the msm has not reported!

1% of the budget when their tax breaks will add $700 BILLION TO THE DEFICIT..not a real trade off for anyone but the wealthy--which would include the congressional Gop!

Typical example of a lack of leadership. Instead of fiscal responsibility, we get "cancel all earmarks" because our politicians are too lame to figure out what the government SHOULD spend money on, what it should NOT spend money on, and how to make revenues equal or exceed outlays. It's just more of the same lazy, irresponsible thinking that got us into this mess, and a continuation of the theme of platitudes as a replacement for wise policy decisions.

If we the American people can stick to a budget...

Well, that's really part of the problem, isn't it. Most American people don't try to balance the budget by asking for a huge pay cut (but government does, by giving huge tax breaks to the rich). In the same vein, how many Americans choose an expensive imported automobile instead of one built by GM, Ford, or Jeep? How many people drive in a way to cut down on fuel consumption so that their money doesn't get sent to the big Middle Eastern oil producers? How many complain to Walmart and other retailers about the percentage of goods they sell that are imported from China.

The federal budget deficit is a big deal, but the trade deficit is a bigger deal by orders of magnitude. And the American people have done less than we are capable of to fix matters. As Pogo said, "we have met the enemy, and he is us." We're the ones who vote for irresponsible politicians. We're the ones who vote for $100,000 tax cuts on the wealthy so we don't have to feel guilty voting for $100 tax cuts for ourselves. We're the ones who can't distinguish between corporations (which should be lightly taxed on revenue, not taxed at all on profits, and banned from the election arena (since they can't vote). Meanwhile, rich people (especially), and even the poor and middle class need to pay a certain amount of taxes (and that includes no ceiling on social security contributions, and no doughnut holes, either), because some things should be done by government (roads, schools, national defense, and many, many other things). Short-sighted and irresponsible.

The greatest generation has been replaced by the "me, mine, gimme now, stab everyone else in the back" generation.

Maybe they aren't typos. Maybe the posters just can't spell :-P

Kyla, I get irritated by people who don't use capital letters or punctuation!

Robin, I understand you completely. I get irritated when people can't spell or use the wrong meaning of a word. example: using your where you're is needed. Pronouncing jewelry as jewlery. Drives me nuts!

Robin: lol

Caps and punctuation are easy. Spelling is haerdd.

This is a SMOKE SCREEN to divert attention from the republican tax breaks for the wealthy that the gop wants to extend...

1% of the budget versus adding $700 Billion to the deficit--

Not a real trade off but a political ploy!

I would support some defense cuts, but only if we could provide decent jobs for the military people when they come home. If they go immediately onto welfare, then what's the point? It's very easy to say close down some bases, which would be a good thing, but make sure we have something for those many thousands of people to do afterwards. We cannot completely do away with the military, that would be very foolish. But streamlining it would be beneficial to this country. Maybe that's why Pres Obama has not followed through on his campaign promise to bring the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan. Because he knows how harshly he will be criticized if they come home and immediately get in the bread line. It's a horrendous situation. But human beings are smart and enterprising -- we got ourselves into it, now it's up to us to get ourselves out.

I had to chuckle on this one!

you got that right bicfj, lets hope they don't go from earmarks (which we can see) to back room deals, we will never get to know about.

you got that right bicfj, lets hope they don't go from earmarks (which we can see) to back room deals, we will never get to know about

Back room deals go on all the time. Most Americans just don't know about a lot of them.

dcpyle

I think all the action is done behind closed doors. Even how to fool voters, into voting for the same people, over and over again. I disagree with the person who feels the Military should continue to be financed while kindergartners,are not provided the things they need, to get a quality education. Quality education is one of the pros for a better America. No I am not a teacher, I am a nurse. I do home care for a hospice. I have seen, first hand, what a poor education and lack of resources, has done to the poor. Illiteracy is the main cause of poverty, crime, mental illness and many more issues. It's time America stop being the "run to" country, when wars and turmoil begin. Let other countries spend their money on wars. Heck, the French are complaining about, having to work more hours a week and the proposed age increase for retirement to 62! The French do not work over 40 hours a week. I believe the number of hours, are 36. I am not trying to pick on France, but it's time America's middle class, did not carry all the burdens.

bicfj,

They get away with it because we allow it. Once we get it through our heads that they work for us and fire the ones who do this things will get better.

There are still people who defend Charlie Rangle. That has to change.

Pork can walk, unfortunately.

Touchdownplay: Do we actually have time to fire every crook when we see that they are one? Since most politicians are crooked as a rule, and we have to pick between two of them, aren't we, well, screwed?

Cav,

No problem just don't get all ben't out of shape when I come over to your place walk off with your property, eat your food and drink your wine.

The 'conversation' about banning earmarks is probably the most disingenuous discussion taking place among politicians today at least in terms of any real solutions to the nation's fiscal woes.

Earmarks account for less than 1% of all Federal spending and more importantly earmarks that are attached to pieces of legislation rarely ADD anything to overall spending but merely give direction as to where money already allocated gets spent in most cases.

Beyond that, even though the media puts a magnifying glass on those situations where earmarks are misused or abused, in the vast majority of cases earmarks represent very legitimate efforts of legislators to bring federal tax dollars home to roost in their own states or districts.

The "Great Earmark Ban" debate is little more than a deflection from dealing with the far more serious issues that effect our nation's long term economic viability and vitality and dealing with how we keep Social Security and Medicare viable while reducing the nation's debt and deficits.

Anyone who really thinks that a ban on deficits in any significant way even begins to address the nation's real fiscal problems would think that using a squirt gun would be an effective means of combating a 4 alarm fire.

We desperately need our legislators to deal with the truly big stuff FIRST, things that will address 10, 25, 40 or 50% of the problem or more in one fell swoop instead of dickering around with less than 1% solutions.

Ron

Look beyond the trees and see the whole forrest. Don't be fooled by the "small" amount of money.

Ear marks are Congressional Lobbying using our money to bribe each other into voting for multi Billion dollar ligislation.

It is similar but worse than Business and Union lobbyest because they are the insiders using our inside money.

Weldon - but you make the assumption that crooks simply wont find a different way to be crooked.

Thats a bad assumption on your part - the rest of us are smart enough to realize, these thieves and liars will simply find a different way to achieve the same outcome, and it'll still cost us - the taxpayers.

There is money put aside to fund national projects. All an earmark does is says that a certain Senator or congressman is asking for some of the money in that pool to be used for a project in their district. The money has already been put into the pool ahead of time. What needs to be done is that the money in that pool needs to be reduced. Take what you reduce it by and fix the infrastructure.

Also the unions don't use federal money at all. We use our money that we earn. We a a group of people with skills in specific trades and work under contract for companies.

Joel - what about the SEIU? Kind of hard to argue those dollars are not at least in part inside money as the union dues come from tax dollars.

I think some may be missing the point- if we can get rid of earmarks and not have to worry about them- they then focus in on important items instead playing politics with the earmarks. It takes an entire layer off the table. Also the earmarks have led to larger legislation- which counts for more that the 1% we keep talking about.

This is a step in the right direction- a needed and necessary step if we are to get to the heart of the matters. Military spending can not be cut at this point- but there are areas where it can be reined in- We do have too many bases in foreign lands that are not necessary any longer- for example.

Lobbiests MUST go!! This is the birthplace of earmarks! and truth be told- they will find a way around this pesky little issue. Just watch your servants and see how they react when the lobbies come calling...

Is the earmark ban all pretty much symbolic? Yes it is- but again, a step in the right direction.

lookforthetruth - sorry, but it will take a constitutuional amendment to eliminate lobbyist.

I am sure that the framers of the constitution only thought that individuals or at best just a small group of individuals would be lobbying congress for legislation to their favor. Today, we have lobbyists who represent mult-national corporations, foreign nationals, environmentalists and other special interest groups.

I think you and I are on the same page on most things- just reading your comments.

you're right- it would take an amendment- but given the current climate in Congress- this may be the time to get it done. People- not just the Tea Partiers- are fed up with politics as usual- and the pols are listening (at least most are, after 2012- they all will...)- and they see what's in it for them- this may be the time to strike a desisive blow to lobbyists all over Congress.

We can only hope

In Congress, it's called lobbying when you give money to a politician to get your point across. In local government, it's called influence peddeling and is unlawful.

Here's my idea for cluaning up washington. 1. Abolish all retirement for Congress. The founding fathers had no desire for there to ever be career politicians. They forwarded the concept of "citizen legislator". 2. Transfer Congressional salaries and benefits to the state they represent. (this would eliminate the ability to vote themselves a raise). All congressional housing would belong to their state and would become sovergn property of that state.

These two simple ideas would accomplish sooooooooo much. There would be no need for term limits because if someone wanted to stay for a lifetime, they will be there for the right reason, not for the gold. Congress would not be able to use the arguement that it is so expensive to live in DC as a basis for the high salaries because they get free housing. Their Salaries would be set by their state legislators and they would participate in their states health care system.

My guess is that there would be a hugh shortage of U-Hauls in the DC area as these greedy bastards flee to greener pastures.......no pun intended.

Weldon, look at the forest, and not the tree. Lobbiests bribe our polititions with campaign financing. Earmarks bribe the constituancy by providing things for the precints that sent the representive. Big spenders will still have congress bought and paid for, and the states constituents will get no federal money from their representatives to build things they need.

WOW!! that would really be something if they did that!!!

That is exactly the thing to do..............no more "earmarks" forever and ban/outlaw all "lobbyists" !!!!

Some revelations on McConnell in George Bush's new book:

I finally bought Dubya's book 'Decision Points' and as I read its becoming clear why the GOP leaned on Bush to wait until after the 2010 midterms to release the book rather than a month before the elections as originally planned.

One of the things Bush reveals is a meeting with Mitch McConnell GOP senator from Kentucky formerly GOP senate majority leader, currently GOP Senate minority leader. In a September of '06 meeting McConnell pleads with Bush to announce a draw down troops from Iraq. What's the big deal with that? The reason he gives Bush in the private meeting is not because he thinks that a draw down is appropriate based on any conditions on the ground but states that it his reason is that it will improve the GOP's chances of retaining their majorities in Congress. To Bush's credit, he basically told Mitch to take a flying leap.

More onerous though is that during the month of September, Mitchy held press conferences and went on a number of Sunday talking head shows to denounce Democrats as wanting to 'cut and run' or to 'surrender Iraq to Al-Queda' for insisting on drawing down troops in Iraq and refocusing our efforts in Afghanistan.

So to recap, according to the GOP's Senate minority leader its OK to ask for a draw down of troops for purely political gain at home but its not OK if you want to redeploy those troops in the real war on terror.

If McConnell will in secret sell out his position on Iraq for purely political gain while publicly denouncing those who support a withdrawal from Iraq to pursue the real war on terror, he'll sell out on anything and everything that he thinks will provide a political advantage and the rest of the country be damned.

We, the people of Ky, already knew Mitch is a partisan dirt bag. Unfortunately, there are a ton of stupid people here who will vote against their best interest.

Why am I shocked? Wonder why Pres. Bush would reveal that?

We, here in the USA, talk about and laugh at other countries governments. We call them all sorts of names, including "Banana Republic" Look at our system with lobbyists. Our mostly lawyer politicians have found a way to legalize bribery. We have bribers (lobbyists) and bribe takers (politicians) They are so many disgusting hypocrites in position of leadership. Their true agenda is to keep power and or line their pockets. The USA and its citizens are way down on their list of priorities.

Wait and See, this is the classic political game that's been around forever. When one loophole closes another will open., bigger and better. That's the American way, Capitalist all the way. Who has the most mighty dollars will rule. Forget about taking care of your less fortunate fellowmen, we do not want Socialism to pollute us and bring us down.

Capitalist all the way

More like kleptocracy.

To dream
the impossible dream...
to reach
the unreachable star...

hate the GOP much?

Constitutional Amendment requiring a balanced budget.

Term limits.

Flat tax.

McConnell - party first, country last. What a shock!

The question about earmarks is not important, the value of these earmarks in comparison to the total budget is miniscule. This is just fluff for the newly elected. My solution may not be an easy one nor a popular one but, we need to shrink the number of people that are on the payroll of the Fed. Government. The hard working American people should not have to pay for over 400 Congressional House Representatives. Cut back this number in each State. The salaries plus staff plus office expenses is outrageouos. I don't care if they have been elected and I don't care which party they belong too, there are too many of them. Lets start shrinking the Government by shrinking the number of elected officials.

fayse - It would take a constitutional amendment to reduce our number of reps.

Decreasing staff size might work though. A fixed number for the house members staff size and a variable number for senators based on state population.

"We, here in the USA, talk about and laugh at other countries governments. We call them all sorts of names, including "Banana Republic"...." Interesting ascertian. since the term "Banana Republic" refers specifically to a tropical or semi-tropical country where U.S. business, with the support and aid of the U.S. government, stole land from the people of the country, and consolidated ownership to themselves and a very few nationals to get all the profits. I'm thinking not the most glowing example of U.S. activities and behaviors. I guess business as usual?

I agree..do something meaningful...get big business out of the halls of Congress NOW! Do the right thing..change the campaign finance laws...so big business can not buy their way in Congrss like they have been doing for the last 30 years. Make Congress accountable to US..the people of the United States. Special interests, big business is respondsible for the mess we are in now. They bought their deregulation, let their own greed muck up Global ecomonics, then cried for bailouts,then paid out big bonuses with OUR money. Repeal NAFTA, levy tarriffs on all imports, regulate all industries that have been deregulated (all) ,esp banking,energy,investments,drugs companies, all of them. Reenact the Glass-Steagall Banking Act, secure our borders, pull our military back from the quicksand cesspools of Afganistan, legistate new laws for the development of new forms of energy...eg solar, wind, etc. Look to other countries like Germany who have been successful with green laws. Make outsourcing of jobs unprofitable and unAmerican....

Democrats as wanting to 'cut and run' or to 'surrender Iraq to Al-Queda' for insisting on drawing down troops in Iraq and refocusing our efforts in Afghanistan.

The bad news is, many of the Democrats actually were pushing for that. I wish that were a lie but it isn't. It was becoming quite popular to claim that one voted for the war before one voted against it.

Even Obama promised on the campaign trail that within 60 days of his taking office he would bring the troops home. Of course, that is a promise that was broken but at least he finally listened to advice he was given and learned from the ground troops in a last minute visit to Iraq to learn what really needed to happen there before he took office.

In other cases, Democrats (Charlie Rangel was one of them) were pushing to reactivate the draft and to make it mandatory for all Americans ages 18-42 to do two years of military service, or other forms of mandatory national service in the case of those unfit for duty. True story, that. Even Kerry pushed for that until he saw how unpopular it would be for his platform. Thank the Lords of Kobol for archive.org at the time. :-)

That will never happen. The Un-disclosed monies for ads was the biggest present that the republicans could have asked for.

All political contributions and Ads should have full disclosure of where the financing originated. This applies to ALL campaigns and ALL parties.

Elections simply put is about he/she who has the most money will win an election instead of who will be best for the country. Money can now buy Ad time with unsubstantiated smear campaigns without any responsibility to account for their statements. Can you say...Swift Boat, Death Squads, Kill Granny etc. Both parties are guilty but the Republican machine seems better at the slander; with no concern about the facts.

It is really sad that individuals have little to no impact on the election process. I would like to know which corporations are backing which candidates so I can decide if I want to buy their products/services or not. Otherwise, the monies I spend are unknowingly going to support a candidate whose platform/political philosophy I may totally disagree with.

This is different from a Union whose members pay dues that they know are to back a specific platform or candidate. I am not advocating Unions, I am simply saying that at least their members have a choice of paying and have full knowledge where there funds go politically.

trankonia - become a member of a union and try NOT paying dues. There is no choice until you enter the voting booth by yourself.

First for those of you who want all lobbyist's money reported, remember, Justice John Roberts and the Supreme Court, may it "legal" for anyone to contribute to a candidate, without identifying themselves. Hence, all the cash coming for the Chamber Of Commerce, via who know where? China? India?

Secondly, we do not need to change the Constitution to have term limits. Americans can and should, vote each member out of office, after their first term. Unfortunately, these congress people get a "full ride" as far as benefits are concerned. So, congress needs to follow the Constitution, where it says, Congress shall not have different retirement and benefits, than the American people. I apologize for not knowing the precise wording, but it is in there.

Lastly, several of the GOP have declined to be on the finance committee because, they do not want to be the ones, cutting the budget for their district. Michell Bachman and others, want the budget cut, they just do not want to look like they had anything to do it!

I have said this before, writing Congressman and Senator, should be on one's resume, but not be made as a career.

...as was the border issues, the other ten red herring issues tossed out by the GOP to mask the REAL issues which were healthcare reforms (due to the fiscal nature of how they are burying us), the deficits and the slow return of jobs.

Using tax cuts that were slated for expiration against Democrats is a HUGE game that interests ONLY the one percenters.

"Using tax cuts that were slated for expiration against Democrats is a HUGE game that interests ONLY the one percenters"

Im not sure about you, but I would like to keep the tax break I got ... and I'm middle class. 3% is still 3% to me ... it may not be 3% of $250,000, but it is still 3% of what I make. Remember, the Bush tax cuts were a simple number, cut across the board. We ALL have tax cuts that will expire in January.

According to CNN (liberal remember), the average American will pay an extra $267 per month in taxes starting in January, and that figure was given off the national average income quoted at under $40,000 per year.

Sounds ominous, @ j.wesley! Almost as you have "insider" information... How do the "voices" propose to to reform our healthcare system?

The current legislation certainly doesn't reform the healthcare system. Don't believe it? Go and read the entire thing--every single page and supporting information and regulations. The healthy are not protected from rate hikes. I have seen rate hikes as high as 42% for a number of individuals in anticipation of Obamacare taking effect. Worse, the legislation still leaves many millions uninsured!

In addition, the law does zero to reform the healthcare industry itself, which is the source of the problem. The root of the problem is not touched at all. The root of the problem is the high cost of doing business at status quo.

The current Medicare system is part of this root of the problem because the costs of losses get passed back onto the public in the form of higher costs for procedures. And, yet, we want to put government in charge of our healthcare? Bad idea. I almost died decades ago while on government assistance, when treatments were denied because they were not part of the Medicare formulary. This new legislation is little better. It needs to be repealed and replaced with something more effective.

You will have to ask his dog, Son of Sam! Bark, bark, bark, bark all night long. Bark, bark, he is telling you something. Listen for his secret message. Everyone will find out Son of Sam's dog is God!

dcpyle -- I too am leery of the US govt running health care. My experience comes from the military health care system, 1). for myself as an active duty female in 1975-81, then as a military wife 1981 to present. When I could, I choose civilian doctors or didn't go to the drs at all. Now I belong to a HMO type health care system, which for the most part does provide adequate and easy access to health care.

The closest military facility is 28 miles away. When we first got here in '96, there was a shortage of military docs, so we had to pick a civilian health care system. There were 3 in the local area to choose from, one was local, another local one wouldn't accept our military health insurance {this policy has since changed since the Iraqi conflicts began sending more wounded home}, another health care system was associated with the nearby university with all the bells and whistles but wasn't convenient or local {was 25 miles away}. A few yrs ago the university closed most of their community clinics, except those that were very close to the unversity itself {I guess residents, etc can't be expected to walk in 250+ days of sunshine to other satellite clinics or ride buses to those destinations}.

Now the military medical facility accepts civilian patients. I don't want to go back to the "get to know your dr, then he or she leaves for a temporary assignment or permnament relocation," then the whole cycle starts all over again. The only problem I've had recently with my HMO is when the orthopedic dept decided that I was a bad patient {in reality, the office manager didn't like my complaints about her and she orchestrated my dismissal.} and kicked me out of the clinic, as in good-bye, come back here we'll have you arrested, which is what the office manager told me. So I was stuck finding a new orthopedic after I had a total knee replacement that didn't heal right. That said office manager never arranged for my physical therapy right after I got home from the hospital after surgery. I kicked and screamed for those 3 wks to get the therapy and never got it because the staff ignored me. When my surgeon got back from his vacation, he hit the ceiling but no one got fired or disciplined for it.

So similar to you medical situation, these medical mistakes will keep on happening, no matter who runs the health care system, worse when its the govt.

Yes!

Yep.

I figure the only way to clean up Washington is to get rid of it. Start voting on everything like the Swiss do. This eliminates the centralized politics that lobbyists require to feed. Today's telecommunications make this possible--Congress is actually obsolete and continues to exist only to support the powerful.

holler - I agree totally. Let the people vote on everything and if you lose, STFU and deal with it.

the only problem with voting on everything is that the federal and district judges will just ignore the votes and make their own legislation.

No, the system is still the best in the world.. it has flaws, and always will but it is also a necessary part of the country. The idea of voting for "everything" is the thinking of idealists and academia. Sadly, too many of the bright young minds are fed this crap from those "instructors" who couldn't "do" so they teach. I applaud President Obama for his "acting" on his concepts, although I disagree with his "ideas" and always have I do give him credit for acting upon the "teaching" he has received. The thing is.. he didn't recognize that those same "teachers" didn't have the guts to stand up in front of the people and speak their opinions, they instead stood behind pulpits and in classrooms surrounded with inexperienced youth or like minded people who don't equate to the general populace. As far as trying to save the economy by cutting the deficit with spending cuts and taxation, it has never worked in the past but I guess the past means nothing to those who don't worry about learning it.

I would think Holler and jerseygirl must be from the Blue States on the East and/or West Coast. If not are probably from a large city. If I'm wrong, then you haven't thought this out clearly. We can't vote on everything that goes on in Washington. It would take up too much time and have disastrous results.

If we went with a pure 51% vote strictly by the people, the country would be run by the West and East coasts along with Chicago, Twin Cities, Denver, Dallas and other areas of large dependent on government people and the 50 States each would be run by the largest populated areas of that state. The rest of us would not ever have a say. We would be disenfranchised and therefore illegally represented according to the Constitution of this Republic.

We are not a Democracy, nor was Ancient Greece. Even Greece had a group of 400 people that made the major decisions The Farmers who could not get to the polls during important votes would designate a representative that would vote for them. Democracies can not stand up to the pressures that are put on them during a 51% vote by the people on all issues. People are too easily distracted to make a valid vote.

They can change their minds too easily and for the cheapest of reasons. Revenge and retribution are the normal voting reasons in the strictest form of Democracy. That is why Greece was not a true Democracy.

As an example here in the USA, one only has to watch some of the late night shows where they send out a person with a camera to ask people walking on the street questions about their country.

People that say they voted, don't even know who Joe Biden is, but they sure know who Paris Hilton or Justin Bieber are. One woman didn't know there was a state called New Mexico. We can't rely on people like that to make decisions for the rest of us when they live in their own little world.

We have a representative country. If we don't like our representatives, we each have the opportunity to vote them out at the next election. In the mean time we need to keep writing them with our opinions and advice. We voted for them to make a reasonable decision for us. At one time I remember filling out questionnaires my representative sent to all voters in their district and they normally followed the way of the majority, but now they seem to follow party line to the detriment of our confidence in them and as a result their not staying our representative.

This country was founded on the right principles. We just need to make sure they are being followed.

DelFairchild, you've hit this squarely on the head. Thank you. Our representative republic is the way to go. It does require a literate electorate, however.

The founders, I think, were way over the top astute in that Congress has representatives allocated by population, and each state has 2 senators.

I'm for not messing with this system. And I do strongly advocate literacy.

But of course! He is old school. He is a part of the Repub Party that has put Party over Country.

He also thinks that by wishing it so, he can turn us back to the late 19th Century; he cannot comprehend the idea that 21st Century is NOW or comprehend the concept of planning for the future. He's hung up on crisis management as a governing tool!

Isn't that what the FBI and CIA have been known to say: "I'm here to help." However don't ever expect to hear those words from FEMA. LOL

It is yet to be seen whether this is the result of real power or just a token thrown to the T.P. to try to satisfy them. I suspect the latter.

In opposite land the Tea Party members call the shots.

So let me get this straight. You support a system that caters to the rich? Tax the poor and middle class? Reagonomics does not work. Trickle down economics do not work. If I gave you more money(tax cuts), you would not hire more people. Rather, you would by a bigger house and a better car. REALITY. This country had a SURPLUS when Clinton left office. In less than a year after taking office, Bush had us broke as a country and to justify the debt, he got us in two wars. The Bush tax cuts should not be extended. We cannot afford them.

The Tea Party is not running the GOP, in fact, the movement suffered a terrible election process. Most of the "Tea Party" politicians lost in general election, many of whom probably cost the GOP seats, namely the Nevada Senate seat. The GOP needed to move to the right, because the difference between big government GOP and big government DEM was indistinguishable. Both parties chose to save a banking system that should have failed, both parties chose to save an auto industry that should have failed, both parties continued to encourage mortgage companies to make illegitimate loans to bolster an unsustainable economy. There has to be choices in government, those who believe that government is a meaningful solution to ills, much like 1930's Austria did, or those who think government is a tool used to protect rights, provide rights where voids exist and ensure that there is the opportunity for those who wish to, are able to succeed to immeasurable levels.

Joseph, there hasn't been a surplus since deficit spending. Also, presidents aren't directly responsible for spending, congress is, so that said your logic is that the last "spending surplus" happened during a Republican Congress. Clinton gets benefit from the fact that two years into his 8 years he lost congress and thus limited his ability to move the economy. At this point business decided that with government shackled by the two parties in opposition they could move forward with development plans. Look for the same thing to happen with Obama's presidency and then when you look back you can claim Obama was the same kind of visionary that you claim Clinton was. By the way, industry is sitting on the greatest amount of capital in history because they didn't know what the government would do next. Now they know... not a thing will be done for at least two years, likely six.

Clinton nor Bush were put under a microscope minutes after taking office. No President in history was expected to show such instant results before President Obama's feet were placed on the fire.

I am sick of the media take over of America. I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK....from Rupert Murdock and the Kock brothers.

Ok John, in AL so...you advocate the failure of the banking system - no help, no bailout...no banks....and then you advocate for the failure of the auto industry - with its millions of subsidiary jobs? And how do you replace the banking system? With what? Surely you must realize that had the gov't allowed the big banks and the auto industry to fail...there would've been a worldwide depression larger and more dangerous than the 1930's, right? You can argue all day about who is to blame for those problems but to advocate that we as a nation would be better off if that had been allowed - well that's extremely shortsighted and offers no solutions. I for one am glad our government had the guts to keep us out of a depression..given the magnitude of the problems we faced from 2007 on. You can wish all you want to succeed..magic fairy dust and all..but it is completely unrealistic to say that allowing the collapse of the banking system, combined with the collapse of the auto industry would have in some way helped this country out of its problems.

Coffee wins over tea! They should drink tea with paraquat!

ConcernedCitizen,

The word "depression" is meaningless in economics. Saying that the bailouts saved us from a depression is likewise meaningless. What isn't meaningless is the word recession and the bailouts did not prevent the recession. Had businesses been allowed to fail, the remaining businesses that didn't make stupid decisions would have bought up their assets and expanded to fill the void created by the failed businesses. So we ended up with a situation where huge businesses that made stupid decisions are going to continue to make stupid decisions and remain huge. But I guess it's worth it because the banks that gave Obama big campaign contributions didn't collapse.

NightOwlett: Please don't tell me you've been drinking tea with the Tea Party: "In opposite land the Tea Party members call the shots."

So true, what you said about Obama being tested with his feet to the fire as soon as he took his oath of presidency. Everyone expected him to walk on water, feed the masses with 2 loaves of bread, 2 fish and 2 containers of wine.

And the Repub Maj Leader wants to make it his mission to see that Obama is a one term president. Said so on Wed morn after elections on national media, no talk about important issues such as cutting congressional spending, helping to meet Obama's objective in Afganistan, work on the health care bill so that it really saves money for people, reduce spending for the Medicare budgets {catching fraud comes to mind}, promoting new methods of energy {solar, wind, etc} and provide incentives for the average citizen. Oh no, none of that talk, he was vehement about making Obama a 1 term president and repealing the health care bill. That's so refreshing for its electorate to hear on the first post-election morning.

Amanda, I don't know where you are gleaning your assumptions about my opinions here. I am hardly a Tea Party member. I am intelligent. I still support President Obama and MY COUNTRY FIRST.

I am SICK to death of Republican's and their AGENDA over the health of our country.

Gee Count you forgot already most of the bailouts were Bushie jrs. affair. Short memory aye?

Up until today, McConnell was standing firm for continuing the earmarks. So having him flip-flop on the issue is what you were looking for. What about when he changes his mind again?

You are correct. The majority of earmarks are for people that work for their pay.

What they're not using screen doors on submarines anymore!

That was already passed back in the 90's. It was struck down by the supreme court.

Ya, there are some constitutional implications of having the Executive branch effectively legislate by going down and line-iteming things that they don't want. You could choose to not enforce the laws if it is something like that, but we have a 3 branch system for a reason. (Could adopt a U.K. approach if you wanted a basically 2 in 1 and 1 like the line-item veto power).

*Note, not saying the U.K. has this system, I know nothing of their day to day politics... just that their executive branch is led by a member of their legislative.

What Ana is saying here is true. I'd like to see McConnel or Paul try to walk down the street in eastern Kentucky if they actually manage to kill entitlements.

Yup, here is a data point.

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/11/fed-tax-sentspent-by-state/

All these people who are mostly republicans are receiving more money from the feds than they pay and yet they are the ones who who are crying.

This tells me that Americans can be fooled easily by the Fox and the millions of dollars outside group spending on TV ads. They lack the knowledge to thinking for themselves. No wonder, other countries are challenging the U.S. in the world stage.

Agreed, it really is the same circular logic that prompted the sign seen at many a Tea Party rally --

"Keep Your Big Government Away from My Medicare!!"

I am interested to know how constituents will take to Rand Paul's version of Social Security and Medicare -- I hope all of them have read plenty of Ayn Rand...Egoists unite indeed.

I want this also... You run ...I'll vote for you... :)

Small businesses have been doing this already and it seems to be working. Hummmm maybe Obama needs to go back to work and see how they are doing it. If companies have to cut to survive then the government should cut right along with them.

I'll second that Marvalea,

Time for sacrifices to be spread to Washington and the wealthy. The middle class is done sacrificing everything. The rich and Washington are next. Poor have nothing to sacrifice so don't look for any savings in social security or medicare unless you have a median test so the wealthy get nothing.

here, here! I'm with you on all that.

Yes indeed. Additional cuts are necessary, but lets not push this aside. While a small gesture it retains symbolic value. The cuts have to start somewhere.

marvela - basically agree with you except for the following two points:

a work week of Monday thru Friday, elimination of half the "congressional breaks" throughout the year (these legislators have the people's work to do!

If they want to work saturdays and sundays fine, they are on salary so no time and a half.

What do you call "congressional breaks"? Peoples work also implies face to face meetings with those that the politician has been elected to represent. On the other hand, international "fact finding" trips should be easy enough to limit, but not neccesarily eliminate altogether.

I'll vote for you too.

John Roberts dealt the biggest blow to Campaign Finance Reform than any other politician. He is not suppose to be a politician but he is. I feel that the man should be impeached since he favors corporations over citizens. I wonder how much he got paid to make that ridiculous ruling? We have all seen what Corporations are doing to our country, do we really want to give them more power? Corporate Welfare surpassed Citizen Welfare in dollars already now they can influence politicians in any direction they want with no disclosure.

Campaign Finance Reform is dead because of the Supreme Court. I just can't believe Congress has let John Roberts get away with this disastrous decision. He should be tarred and feathered and sent to jail.

Yes, but there is a fine line from agreeing that something for the public's welfare and our state could use it and the miscellanious items to lobbyists are in a totally unrelated bill.

Having a bill that is universal to a region/the nation and saying we'll get an outside investigator to evaluate what need is there is a better and more honest way to go about it. (In your example, having a highway maintaince bill and outside recommendations on what a state should recieve to help maintain it would be something the American people could understand without having to know 'Legalize').

In 2008 the state of Alaska received more earmark money per capita than any other state. Wasn't that Palin woman still in office back then? How will she explain that to the tea followers?

farmers are definitely not getting rich. Maybe the big corporate farms are.

Good start and then get rid of affirmative action too.

I think the point Doug, is that its renewable. Now, if you want to make the legit. arguement that it burns dirtier than gasoline, feel free. But the subsitities are to try and find better ways of producing the material that would be more sustainable if we can't kick our gasoline addiction. (Which also dictates possible *key word possible* national security threats, however unlikely they are).

Also, on the farming bit... farming isn't something that will make you rich. You will not see a billionaire that made it rich by owning a ton of farmland. (Maybe if they turn some of it into residential or if they happened to get it from a rebel group). Its something that generally breaks even in the long run. Honest profession that can sustain you and your family for generations.

And for the sake of using my forum name... /facepalm for suggesting cutting our already lacking education system.

Doug

A few facts about Alaska. The population is a little over 650,000. Thus the per capita amount will be misleading. Most of the towns and villages can only be reached via air or boat. Gas is over $6.50 per gal. in a lot of locations. Over $7 in a few. That means that check from the state would fill up my pickup five and a half times. A gallon of milk can cost over $6. So why do people live here. To help supply the 14% of all domestic supplied oil that the US uses. (It used to be 25% before production declined.)

Well, i can't say its a true /facepalm. They should be a sparkling jewel for the rest of the country for the amount of federal cash they do get. But when suggesting cutting social programs I'd recommend against putting down ones that have our children's future at stake. I'll take a cut on how much tax monies I'll get back, I really don't want to have to worry about pulling my kids from public schools because they suck.

Amen to that, Doug !!

I usually don't go against spending for education. However, have you seen the condition of some of those Southeast schools that they have had on TV in recent months, especially those in flood areas? What about the young girl who wrote to Pres Obama about her school which was falling about, she was invited to his 1st State of the Nation address. I won't let my dogs live or be boarded in places like any of those schools shown. I don't know how children can learn in classrooms with mice running around, mold and mildew affecting their air, overcrowded classrooms because existing classrooms were no longer usuable {ceilings falling in, other safety and health hazards}.