"There will be no earmarks in the Economic Recovery Package..."

[Auburn85 438]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaDtkG6afBc...feature=related

[Justin5 20]

She told the COMPLETE truth. Do you know what an earmark is?? It is an addition to a bill that funds a specific project in 1 Congressional District.

The Recovery Package has NO EARMARKS.

There are 3 main parts of the bill

First, the package funds agencies at the federal level (USDA, DOD, DOT) and the allows those agencies (which again have no ties to Congressional Districts) to use the funding where they see fit.

The next part of the package is funding for state agencies, that is figured by a need formula.

The final part of the package is tax cuts.

ZERO% of this bill is earmarks. I stake my reputation on that.

[rexbo 104]

She told the COMPLETE truth. Do you know what an earmark is?? It is an addition to a bill that funds a specific project in 1 Congressional District.

The Recovery Package has NO EARMARKS.

There are 3 main parts of the bill

First, the package funds agencies at the federal level (USDA, DOD, DOT) and the allows those agencies (which again have no ties to Congressional Districts) to use the funding where they see fit.

The next part of the package is funding for state agencies, that is figured by a need formula.

The final part of the package is tax cuts.

ZERO% of this bill is earmarks. I stake my reputation on that.

The whole thing is an earmark. If Nancy doesn't have the 'earmarks' documented in the bill; it's only because she doesn't want anyone to see where she's made the behind-closed-doors deals.

This thing stinks, and the harder Obama tries to push it down America's throat, with the false threat of 'impending economic tragedy', the quicker America is going to see he is not the second Jimmy Carter, that he is actually worse...

[OldNewby 27]

Porky has a new name. "Economic Recovery Package".

But she's still the same old sow.

[rexbo 104]

ZERO% of this bill is earmarks. I stake my reputation on that.

Tell me this isn't effectively a $2 billion earmark for Illinois? Can you guarantee, with your reputation, that this money isn't intended for this specific project in Illinois?

What's in the Stimulus?: An Earmark as Big as the Ritz

What's in the Stimulus?: An Earmark as Big as the Ritz [Mark Hemingway]

Buried in the 800 page stimulus bill is this seemingly innocuous allocation — well it's inocuous relative to a $1 trillion stimulus bill anyway — "$2,000,000,000 is available for one or more near zero emission powerplant(s).”

Interstingly enough, there's no such thing as a "near zero emission powerplant" — yet. The Bush administration had been planning to try and build the first of its kind in Mattoon, Illinois as part of the FutureGen project. The Department of Energy scuttled the project last year in part due to rising costs. The project was to be done as a part of a public-private alliance with the DOE picking up 74 percent of the projected $1.8 billion price tag, compared to initial estimates of $950 million.

Further, technological advancements had made the project obsolete. In a letter to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, headlined "New technology makes FutureGen a waste of tax money," then Secretary of Energy, Samuel W. Bodman, wrote:

The project's estimated cost has almost doubled and innovations in technology and changes in the marketplace have created other viable options for demonstrating carbon capture and storage on a commercial scale. That diminished the need for a demonstration project.

It became clear the Department of Energy could not, in good conscience, continue to support the program. The likelihood that it would fail, leaving the American people with hundreds of millions of dollars in sunk cost and none of the benefits, is not acceptable.

An MIT report concluded "the U.S. government begin thinking about such a portfolio of demonstration projects and not be singularly focused on any one project such as FutureGen." And the Washington Post editorial board also concluded the technology was "prohibitively expensive."

So in effect the inclusion of $2 billion for a near zero emissions powerplant amounts to a staggering earmark — one that's nine times the cost of the bridge to nowhere. It's also substantially larger than Congress' previous earmark record of $1.5 billion for the DC metro system last year.

After FutureGen was abandoned, disgraced Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich paid Cassidy and Associates, a major Washington, D.C. lobbying firm, $468,000 in public funds to lobby to restart the project. The Illinois delegation in Congress has also been pushing hard for the FutureGen earmark, despite the fact that the Obama administration has been vocal about their opposition to earmarks in the stimulus, and has even specfically said they are oppposed to including funding for FutureGen in the bill.

The Wall Street Journal estimates that the FutureGen would generate about 2,675 new jobs — and only 150 of those are permanent. Congress would be spending just shy of $750,000 per new job.

The language is still in the stimulus, though Senator Tom Coburn — the Van Helsing of earmark hunters — has introduced an amendment (#108) to strike the FutureGen funding from the bill.

[TigerHeat 9]

The $600M for government cars isn't an earmark for Michigan??? Surely you jest.

[rexbo 104]

Still waiting for your guarantee...

ZERO% of this bill is earmarks. I stake my reputation on that.

Tell me this isn't effectively a $2 billion earmark for Illinois? Can you guarantee, with your reputation, that this money isn't intended for this specific project in Illinois?

What's in the Stimulus?: An Earmark as Big as the Ritz

What's in the Stimulus?: An Earmark as Big as the Ritz [Mark Hemingway]

Buried in the 800 page stimulus bill is this seemingly innocuous allocation — well it's inocuous relative to a $1 trillion stimulus bill anyway — "$2,000,000,000 is available for one or more near zero emission powerplant(s).”

Interstingly enough, there's no such thing as a "near zero emission powerplant" — yet. The Bush administration had been planning to try and build the first of its kind in Mattoon, Illinois as part of the FutureGen project. The Department of Energy scuttled the project last year in part due to rising costs. The project was to be done as a part of a public-private alliance with the DOE picking up 74 percent of the projected $1.8 billion price tag, compared to initial estimates of $950 million.

Further, technological advancements had made the project obsolete. In a letter to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, headlined "New technology makes FutureGen a waste of tax money," then Secretary of Energy, Samuel W. Bodman, wrote:

The project's estimated cost has almost doubled and innovations in technology and changes in the marketplace have created other viable options for demonstrating carbon capture and storage on a commercial scale. That diminished the need for a demonstration project.

It became clear the Department of Energy could not, in good conscience, continue to support the program. The likelihood that it would fail, leaving the American people with hundreds of millions of dollars in sunk cost and none of the benefits, is not acceptable.

An MIT report concluded "the U.S. government begin thinking about such a portfolio of demonstration projects and not be singularly focused on any one project such as FutureGen." And the Washington Post editorial board also concluded the technology was "prohibitively expensive."

So in effect the inclusion of $2 billion for a near zero emissions powerplant amounts to a staggering earmark — one that's nine times the cost of the bridge to nowhere. It's also substantially larger than Congress' previous earmark record of $1.5 billion for the DC metro system last year.

After FutureGen was abandoned, disgraced Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich paid Cassidy and Associates, a major Washington, D.C. lobbying firm, $468,000 in public funds to lobby to restart the project. The Illinois delegation in Congress has also been pushing hard for the FutureGen earmark, despite the fact that the Obama administration has been vocal about their opposition to earmarks in the stimulus, and has even specfically said they are oppposed to including funding for FutureGen in the bill.

The Wall Street Journal estimates that the FutureGen would generate about 2,675 new jobs — and only 150 of those are permanent. Congress would be spending just shy of $750,000 per new job.

The language is still in the stimulus, though Senator Tom Coburn — the Van Helsing of earmark hunters — has introduced an amendment (#108) to strike the FutureGen funding from the bill.

[Justin5 20]

Nope, not an earmark. If you want to use clarifiers like 'effectively' and claim it's an earmark, there's nothing I can do to stop you, but it's not an earmark.

[Tigermike 4,240]

Nope, not an earmark. If you want to use clarifiers like 'effectively' and claim it's an earmark, there's nothing I can do to stop you, but it's not an earmark.

Yeah and Bill Clinton said he didn't have sex.

Just because you guys call it something else does not mean they aren't what they always have been.

[rexbo 104]

Nope, not an earmark. If you want to use clarifiers like 'effectively' and claim it's an earmark, there's nothing I can do to stop you, but it's not an earmark.

Here's your Democratic logic in play - Nope, not murder, I am just going to shoot you in the head with this gun. You can 'effectively' call it murder all you want, there's nothing I can do to stop you; but it's not murder, all I am going to do is pull the trigger.

All of the so called 'clarifying' is being done by the Democrats in Congress, doing their best to weasel their way around Obama's claim to the nation that this bill won't be full of earmarks. Even MSNBC is seeing through your BS; and has clearly laid out the case that has damaged what little credibility you had left with me.

In stimulus bills, earmarks by any other name

ProPublica: Despite Obama's vow, package has perks for special interests

By Michael Grabell and Christopher Weaver

updated 9:29 a.m. CT, Thurs., Feb. 5, 2009

Lumped together, the House and Senate versions of the economic stimulus plan number some 1,400 pages, roughly the equivalent of the complete works of Shakespeare.

And some of the language is just as artfully crafted.

The package includes an insurance exemption — but only for companies that work on recreational boats longer than 65 feet. Another provision would lift a Medicare regulation affecting only three long-term care hospitals in the country. There’s also language requiring the Transportation Security Administration to buy 100,000 uniforms from U.S. apparel makers.

In theory and publicity, the package is “earmark free.” But it contains dozens of narrowly defined programs that send money to specific areas or cater to special interests, despite President Barack Obama’s pledge to pass “an economic recovery plan that is free from earmarks and pet projects.”

Some — like the yacht workers’ exemption — would take little or nothing from taxpayer pockets. Others, like $3 billion in extra transit money added by the House, are handing ammo to critics who say the stimulus plan, now at about $900 billion in the Senate, has morphed into a Christmas list.

As part of the ShovelWatch project with WNYC radio in New York, ProPublica plumbed the depths of the stimulus bills looking to see how closely Congress is coming to Obama’s stated goal.

What is an ‘earmark’?

In part, the answer hinges on the definition of an “earmark.” Democrats insist they are nowhere in the plan; Republicans see “pork” everywhere. So we cribbed from criteria Congress laid out in a 2007 reform bill: language that aims spending at specific programs, states or localities, often at a member’s request.

Specific location? The Senate stimulus contains $50 million for habitat restoration and other water needs in the San Francisco Bay Area. There is another $62 million for military projects in Guam.

Specific industry? The House bill includes an amendment authored by Democratic Rep. Bruce Braley setting aside $500 million for biofuel makers, which he says, would bring jobs home to Iowa.

Specific program? There’s $198 million to compensate Filipino World War II veterans for their service. Most don’t live in the United States.

[Auburn85 438]

Nope, not an earmark. If you want to use clarifiers like 'effectively' and claim it's an earmark, there's nothing I can do to stop you, but it's not an earmark.

Here's your Democratic logic in play - Nope, not murder, I am just going to shoot you in the head with this gun. You can 'effectively' call it murder all you want, there's nothing I can do to stop you; but it's not murder, all I am going to do is pull the trigger.

All of the so called 'clarifying' is being done by the Democrats in Congress, doing their best to weasel their way around Obama's claim to the nation that this bill won't be full of earmarks. Even MSNBC is seeing through your BS; and has clearly laid out the case that has damaged what little credibility you had left with me.

In stimulus bills, earmarks by any other name

ProPublica: Despite Obama's vow, package has perks for special interests

By Michael Grabell and Christopher Weaver

updated 9:29 a.m. CT, Thurs., Feb. 5, 2009

Lumped together, the House and Senate versions of the economic stimulus plan number some 1,400 pages, roughly the equivalent of the complete works of Shakespeare.

And some of the language is just as artfully crafted.

The package includes an insurance exemption — but only for companies that work on recreational boats longer than 65 feet. Another provision would lift a Medicare regulation affecting only three long-term care hospitals in the country. There’s also language requiring the Transportation Security Administration to buy 100,000 uniforms from U.S. apparel makers.

In theory and publicity, the package is “earmark free.” But it contains dozens of narrowly defined programs that send money to specific areas or cater to special interests, despite President Barack Obama’s pledge to pass “an economic recovery plan that is free from earmarks and pet projects.”

Some — like the yacht workers’ exemption — would take little or nothing from taxpayer pockets. Others, like $3 billion in extra transit money added by the House, are handing ammo to critics who say the stimulus plan, now at about $900 billion in the Senate, has morphed into a Christmas list.

As part of the ShovelWatch project with WNYC radio in New York, ProPublica plumbed the depths of the stimulus bills looking to see how closely Congress is coming to Obama’s stated goal.

What is an ‘earmark’?

In part, the answer hinges on the definition of an “earmark.” Democrats insist they are nowhere in the plan; Republicans see “pork” everywhere. So we cribbed from criteria Congress laid out in a 2007 reform bill: language that aims spending at specific programs, states or localities, often at a member’s request.

Specific location? The Senate stimulus contains $50 million for habitat restoration and other water needs in the San Francisco Bay Area. There is another $62 million for military projects in Guam.

Specific industry? The House bill includes an amendment authored by Democratic Rep. Bruce Braley setting aside $500 million for biofuel makers, which he says, would bring jobs home to Iowa.

Specific program? There’s $198 million to compensate Filipino World War II veterans for their service. Most don’t live in the United States.

what i hate is some of the supporters of this play on the heart strings.

giving money to Filipino world war II veterans a noble thing? you betcha

will it stimulate the economy? not no, but hell no

it's pretty simple.

make the war veterans fund a seperate bill

put the $600 million in coupons for converter boxes and so forth in another bill not a 'stimulus' bill. digital television is not a necessity. you can't eat a converter box.

but no, it's got to be in a single package and we shouldn't have much debate. it's the "distractions" obama talks about.

castrophe. the economy is facing catastrophe. it doesn't matter if you're broke, we need to free up the credit markets to give broke people more lines of credit.

i know most of you already have this drilled in your brain, but how can anyone is good faith keep claiming a catastrophe and how people are struggling to stay afloat, but you initally balk at the idea of tax cuts because people won't spend it the way you like it or won't spend it at all. you talk about a catastrophe, but you're hell bent on the continuation to take 25% from families in certain income brackets known as the 'middle class' in which you run around claming is hurting. that family would have a better chance with 25% more of their income than not having it right? some folks get a second job, but you run a risk by "working" more because you run the risk of being placed in a different tax bracket. absolute insanity.

but that's the thing, we've been so institutionalized with the income tax

we've been so institutionalized, that the federal government is the exception to the rule for cutting back on their own expenses.

the word cut is no longer allowed in our vocabulary. the federal government can't even reduce a budget from it's previous year. it's an unspoken law/demand that it must stay at the same level or increase. we can't even go from our last budget, which was $3.0 trillion to $2.9 trillion for the next budget.

remember "tax cuts caused the deficit."

tax cuts is what got us here. tax cuts don't work. tax cuts don't stimulate the economy, but printing money and borrowing money from other countries does.

people are currently trying to save and pay bills and purchase stuff they need. the government is trying to intervene. they want broke people to buy more stuff they don't need. at this very moment, people don't need a new car. i'm sure they might could use another sound, newer used car, but not a brand new car.

something is terribly wrong when so many requests on the stimulus watch website have a better chance of getting a piece of this borrowed money than i could have more of my paycheck.

what kind of people request a dog park in a state that can't even refund state income tax returns? several of those citizens get up everyday, work their tails off regardless of health, bite their tongue as they have no choice, but to pay their taxes. they do the right thing. they don't cheat on their taxes. the money is paid in. then, when it's time for the taxpayer to collect what they overpaid, they get screwed. yet, if you're $1 off when filing your taxes, it spits it back at you, until it's corrected.

ugh