Porkbusters

Posted at Minnesota Politics:


Yes, yes, I am all for this: a Congressional gift ban, meal ban, travel ban, ban on earmarks, and a ban on no-bid contracts. Lobbyists should not be able to buy politicians. I have no problem as a taxpayer paying more for Congressional travel on fact-finding missions as long as it cuts lobbyists out of the loop. Eliminating earmarks may reduce spending enough to pay for it anyway.
According to Larry Jacobs, "the odds of this passing are long." That's because the bums in Congress now are accustomed to being bought. Throw them out and insist that our new elected officials reform Congress. It's the only way to eliminate these scandals.


...read complete post at Minnesota Politics

Posted by from the blogosphere at 08:11 PM | Permalink

Posted at anticollective:


Source: Pork Busters

Edited to fit size.

Let me use last year's highway bill to illustrate how the practice of earmarking has grown and become such a tempting target for abuse. In 1987, President Reagan vetoed a highway bill because it was ten billion dollars over his budget, and contained over a hundred earmarks. He remarked at the time of his veto that he hadn’t seen that much pork since he had "handed out blue ribbons at the Iowa State Fair." The highway bill we passed last year, and which the President signed into law, was twelve billion dollars over his request, and contained 6,731 earmarks, which included the now infamous "bridge to nowhere." That's quite an explosion in the growth of earmarks, which you have the privilege of paying for with your gas taxes. And it represents 6,371 separate opportunities for a lobbyist to ask a single member of Congress for a favor that the rest of Congress won't vote on and most members won’t even notice.
The total number of earmarks in spending bills has grown from 4,126 in 1994, the last year of Democratic control, to 14,404 in 2004. That's a 240 percent increase in ten years time. In dollars, the cost borne by taxpayers for earmarks has nearly doubled.

...read complete post at anticollective

Posted by from the blogosphere at 07:31 PM | Permalink

Club for Growth

...read complete post at The Club For Growth - Blog

Posted by at 02:33 PM | Permalink

Posted at The Influence Peddler:

If he becomes Leader again, he'd be almost halfway to Billy Martin status. Although in the photo that Tim provides, it looks like he's trying for the Papacy.
At times the Senate has seemed like the gang that couldn't shoot straight. Lott could help improve that. Or on the other hand, maybe he'd be more likely to pursue the same old 'business as usual' policy on spending and earmarks that made him so upset with fiscal conservatives.

Lott's Role Model?

Back to the top.


...read complete post at The Influence Peddler

Posted by from the blogosphere at 06:57 AM | Permalink

Posted at The Influence Peddler:

Well, I've mentioned a few times that I think Bob Byrd will face a tough re-election race this year, particularly given the growing attention to Alan Mollohan and his problems with earmarks. West Virginia's State Journal throws cold water on my suggestions, with a poll showing Byrd leading Republican Raese 59%-30%.

There's no way I can spin that as a good result for Raese. I'm not brimming with optimism, but Raese does have a lot of money to spend. We'll watch to see if anything changes.

Back to the top.

...read complete post at The Influence Peddler

Posted by from the blogosphere at 11:04 PM | Permalink

Posted at Chaos Digest:


Growing up in Chicagoland, it is easy to not realize that the Chicago Tribune is a very conservative paper. After all, when it is all you know (and the main competition is a running punch line), is seems... well, like the norm. But make no mistake, the Tribune is very conservative.
So when the Trib comes out swinging with both fists at House Speaker Dennis Hastert, you know it is a serious deal: Hastert inserted two earmarks into last year's transportation bill--one for $152 million that would help fund the Prairie Parkway and one for a $55 million interchange. The parkway interchange is about 5 miles from the property he held in secret. Earmarks only become public knowledge after the fact. There's no chance for scrutiny in advance. The House under Hastert has turned the earmark into an art form.
It's business as usual. Last week the House passed the $427.6 billion defense appropriations bill. It contained money for Iraq and Afghanistan, a military pay raise, missile defense--and $5 billion in earmarks for pet projects. Enough.

...read complete post at Chaos Digest

Posted by from the blogosphere at 10:33 PM | Permalink

Posted at zonitics.com:

Flake on the Make

Remember when Rep. Jeff Flake drew local heat for his stance against earmarks, not only getting nailed in the media but also drew a primary challenge? Now with the federal Republican majority at risk in the House due to the perception of corruption and earmarks being front and center, Flake looks like prescient in his earlier stance

Rep. Flake has become the Wall Street

...read complete post at zonitics.com

Posted by from the blogosphere at 09:09 PM | Permalink

Posted at HUMAN EVENTS ONLINE - Conservative News, Views & Books:

Kudos to Gretchen Hamel and the House Republican Conference for putting together a successful Blog Row event today on Capitol Hill. Like the previous State of the Union blogging event I attended back in January, today's session featured a non-stop flow of congressmen -- so many, in fact, I couldn't keep up.

We had 14 members show up, and between Pat Cleary of ShopFloor.org and myself, I think we managed to cover most of the bases.

I'm providing links to the members whose remarks I've already covered, and below, I've summarized the comments of those who also came, but, for lack of time, I didn't get to write about.

• Roy Blunt and Deb Pryce on Medicare Rx Program
• John Doolittle and Jeb Hensarling on Taxes and Spending
• Katherine Harris on Bill Nelson and Offshore Drilling
• Scott Garrett on Bilingual Ballots and N.J. Senate Race
• Cliff Stearns on Bilingual Ballots, UN Waste and Offshore Drilling

As for the rest of the program, here are some highlights of what the other members said.

• Rep. Pete Hoekstra: The House Intelligence Committee chairman came to talk about the report detailing the 500 WMDs found in Iraq. Hoekstra also announced that he had written to Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte today regarding a press briefing conducted by unnamed "U.S. intelligence officials" whose responses Hoekstra characterized as "inaccurate, incomplete, and occasionally misleading" regarding the WMD report.

• Rep. Ed Royce: The California Republican is gearing up for hearings next week on immigration reform, as my colleague Terry Jeffrey pointed out in a column yesterday. Royce said the first hearing will take place on July 5 in San Diego and the second will be on July 7 in Laredo, Tex. Royce emphasized his belief that the immigration bill passed by the House last December is the correct approach, and he even expressed some optimism that senators were beginning to move in that direction after reading what Sen. Teddy Kennedy's aides had slipped into the 800-page bill.

• Rep. Eric Cantor: The chief deputy whip came with several talking points, beginning with the war in Iraq and the strides the U.S. is making there. He cited the death of Zarqawi, the new Iraqi prime minister and President Bush's recent trip as examples of positive developments. On the domestic front, Cantor said Republicans have shown they're serious about fiscal discipline by passing the Line-Item Veto Act and stopping an estimated $45 billion in Democrat-proposed spending measures. Cantor said the GOP was also making progress in the areas of energy policy, focusing this week on a plan for offshore drilling.

• Rep. Marsha Blackburn: This Tennessee Republican talked about her trip to Iraq, which she just returned from over the weekend. She offered a positive assessment of the war effort there. Blackburn also talked about the immigration debate and earmarks. On that last topic, she said the House has voted to cut 95 federal programs this year, up from 53 in 2005.

• Rep. Randy Neugebauer: Like his fellow Texan Jeb Hensarling, this Republican opened with a similar line about taxes and spending, "Congress doesn't have an income problem, it has a spending problem." Neugebauer also talked about the bilingual ballot requirement of the Voting Rights Act. On the Supreme Court's decision in the Texas redistricting case, he said it was a triumph for states' rights.

• Rep. John Carter: This former Texas judge talked about the sound economy -- which grew at a rate of 5.6% in the first quarter -- and the need for a strong immigration reform bill. Carter said he's met with a 35-member Hispanic council in his district and citizenship -- the key component of the Senate bill -- has never come up once.

• Rep. Todd Akin: In the bellwether state of Missouri, Akin said Sen. Jim Talent (R.-Mo.) stands a good shot at being re-elected despite a tough challenge from Democrat Claire McCaskill. He also spoke about the Pledge Protection Act, legislation he is sponsoring to prohibit federal courts from ruling on the Pledge of Allegiance. He said he was inspired to introduce the measure after the words "under God" came under attack from liberal judges on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

...read complete post at HUMAN EVENTS ONLINE - Conservative News, Views & Books

Posted by from the blogosphere at 06:55 PM | Permalink

Posted at Shining City Atop a Hill:

Congress' Report Card: Not Looking too good!

The Heritage Foundation, a conservative group, graded the House and the Senate on dozen major economic domestic policy issues: spending restraint, budget process reform, earmark reform, property rights, Social Security reform, pension reform, energy, tax relief, tax reform, Medicare, Medicaid, and health care reform.

The results are certainly less than stellar... especially in the Senate. But anyone watching Congress over the last 5 years could have guessed that.
If Congress was my child I would take the belt to it.

Incumbents must be feeling a little uneasy with November approaching!

...read complete post at Shining City Atop a Hill

Posted by from the blogosphere at 02:23 PM | Permalink

Posted at Upper Left:

…but the little kids understand, sez the Senior Senator from the Upper Left."This is about taking responsibility when you mess up. That's something even little kids understand."As the recipient of a letter from the VA warning me that my own records may have been among those compromised by the institutional neglect and incompetence of yet another branch of Bushco, I applaud Senator Patty Murray's leadership on finding a fast and fair way to provide a measure of protection to all who've been affected.

Clearly, the administration hasn't found such a plan yet, as weeks go by since the belated disclosure of the data losses at the VA. Steve Benen sums up the problems with their approach so far...It was bad enough Bush's VA was so careless with the information. It was worse when the administration hasn't quite sure what it had lost, even a month later.

But this response on veterans' behalf is truly amazing. The Bush administration is willing to pay for a year of free credit monitoring, but to pay for it, officials wanted to take money from accounts that pay for veterans' health care. When Dems shamed them into backing down, the Bush gang said it'd instead pay for the monitoring by taking money from job training, student loans, and a farmers' assistance program.Seems to me that the sacrifice of a few of the pork barrel earmarks that have been such a linchpin to the entire Republican culture of corruption might provide more than enough money, without putting a kid out of school or a family off the farm.

And where'd this sudden Republican enthusiasm for pay-go come from?

Keep up the fight, Patty, and thanks.

...read complete post at Upper Left

Posted by from the blogosphere at 12:09 PM | Permalink

Club for Growth

...read complete post at The Club For Growth - Blog

Posted by at 10:10 AM | Permalink

Posted at Liberally Conservative:

George H. W. Bush, aka Bush 41, promised, "No New Taxes" in his bid for reelection. What we got was a tax hike and the unscrupulous Bill Clinton. Fortunately a Republican congress applied "The Contract With America" and innovation in the high tech boom made for a great economy. It also made the politicians and Clinton administration look smart.

xxx

As Johnny Carson said years ago, "Who Do You Trust?" or "Whom Do You Trust?" Today's congressional Republicans have turned soft to conservative principles, they lack the intestinal fortitude to stop the flood of earmarks, and mimic their so called rivals on the left.

xxx

As sure as the sun will rise in the East, if the liberals gain power in the House or Senate, a tax increase proposal will appear on the horizon. Only a President with a sense for free market economies will veto such a proposal. Unfortunately the earmarking will continue and probably grow, increasing big federal government.

xxx

Politicians are only creative when the decision making is easy. They don't have to know economics, they only have to satisfy the lobbyists who pave the way for their election and then, reelection. It's easy, buy your way in, move into a nice home near D.C. and plan to be a career politician, riding on taxpayers money.

xxxx

Tim Kaine, the new Democratic Governor from Virginia, vowed during his campaign not to raise taxes. So much for that, he recently called for a tax increase even with a hugh surplus of $1.5 billion. The $1 billion tax increase proposal was defeated although many Republicans voted for it.

xxx

Former Democratic Virginia Governor, Mark Warner, has 2008 presidential ambitions. Warner also campaigned against higher taxes but won approval of his own tax hike. The Wall Street Journal reported on a study of economic growth and taxes. The following is what they found:

xxx

A new study from the American Shareholders Association examined the 10-year forecast for economic growth and federal revenue collections for the period 1997-2006. And over these years, it found, the CBO underestimated tax revenue collections by a cumulative $800 billion.
The forecasting faux pas is actually larger because those estimates excluded the impact of at least three major tax cuts (in 1997, 2001 and 2003) that subsequently passed Congress. These tax cuts were estimated by the wizards at Joint Tax to deplete federal tax collections by an additional $1.24 trillion through 2006, according to the Shareholders Association study.
So if you add those together, CBO and JTC have managed to underestimate revenues by $2.04 trillion over the past decade. Here's one way to appreciate how large this error is: It would be as if CBO forgot to count all the federal income tax payments made by every resident of Florida for an entire decade. Tied to their outdated forecasting models, these agencies refuse to acknowledge that there is any Laffer Curve effect from changes in tax rates that help the economy grow and revenues increase. Thus CBO also managed to project a decade ago that the U.S. economy would be $1.3 trillion smaller today than it actually is.

xxx

Misinformation and more good money chasing the bad. This is just one more example of waste and a nice excuse for politicians to promise not to raise taxes before they do.

...read complete post at Liberally Conservative

Posted by from the blogosphere at 10:01 AM | Permalink

Posted at The fatman chronicles--all hope renounce, ye lost, who enter here:


Arizona Sen. John McCain (R) has (alledgedly) written a post for the blog Porkbusters. (The link takes you to the first comment. Scroll up to read McCain's post.) The following is a comment I left there.

First of all, thank you for your service during the Vietnam War. You are, in that respect, a far better man than I ever was or ever will be.
Unfortunately, I can't say the same thing about your service in the Senate. Whether it's earning a 100% rating on gun control from the left-wing site "Progressive Punch", caving into Vicente Fox and George Bush on the "guest-worker" (read "amnesty/open borders") policy or trashing the First Amendment just because you're too thin-skinned to handle criticism, you've managed to convince me that I wouldn't vote for you for dog catcher, let alone President of the United States.

I later went back and added a second comment.

Sorry, but I forgot to mention that I find your attempts to wrap yourself in the mantle of Ronald Reagan particularly repugnant.

That pretty much says it all as far as I'm concerned.


...read complete post at The fatman chronicles--all hope renounce, ye lost, who enter here

Posted by from the blogosphere at 02:52 AM | Permalink

Posted at HUMAN EVENTS ONLINE - Conservative News, Views & Books:

I was so busy lauding the achievements of Rep. Jack Kingston (R.-Ga.) yesterday that I forgot to mention Sen. John McCain's post on Porkbusters -- his first on a blog.

Congratulations to Porkbusters founders Glenn Reynolds and N.Z. Bear for scoring a big coup by getting the contribution from McCain. And congratulations to McCain for finally taking a step into the blogosphere.

...read complete post at HUMAN EVENTS ONLINE - Conservative News, Views & Books

Posted by from the blogosphere at 12:48 AM | Permalink

Posted at Scientia Est Potentia:

McCain blogs about pork (via Instapundit). Juicy quote:
The total number of earmarks in spending bills has grown from 4,126 in 1994, the last year of Democratic control, to 14,404 in 2004. That's a 240 percent increase in ten years time. In dollars, the cost borne by taxpayers for earmarks has nearly doubled.
(Technorati tags: senator, mccain, pork)

...read complete post at Scientia Est Potentia

Posted by from the blogosphere at 11:58 PM | Permalink

Posted at SoapBlox/Chicago :: A progressive Blog on Chicago & the Midwest:

Denny's just not feeling the love from the Chicago Tribune these days. Recently they have been reporting on a Land Deal That netted 'Ole Hamhocks nearly $2 million in profit.

In fact, they even got in his face a bit, with an article subtitled Highway to Hastertland. But today, they just just flat out slammed him in a scathing editorial. Slammed him not just for the land deal, but for not putting a stop to Congressional Earmarks, as well.

Follow me below for a taste of the Tribune's brow beating:

...read complete post at SoapBlox/Chicago :: A progressive Blog on Chicago & the Midwest

Posted by from the blogosphere at 10:57 PM | Permalink

Posted at PAXALLES:

Senator John McCain has chosen to begin his blogging career posting on a topic that he has championed since the beginning of his political career - reducing excessive spending and promoting small government. Senator McCain, who has been consistent in...

...read complete post at PAXALLES

Posted by from the blogosphere at 08:29 PM | Permalink

Posted at History Is Elementary:


In this post titled, “We Need to Stop This…Now”, Sen. John McCain apparently agrees with me concerning the inability of Congress to be about the business of the people. He states:

I'm afraid it's because at times we value our incumbency more than our principles.

Follow the above link at Porkbusters where Mr. McCain is a guest blogger. It is refreshing to see a politician put himself in a position where citizens can tell him what they think.


...read complete post at History Is Elementary

Posted by from the blogosphere at 07:43 PM | Permalink

Posted at Strange Fictions:

On Porkbusters, a good read.

The editors of National Review have argued -- and I agree with them -- that unless Republicans curb government spending by reforming the budget process, we may lose our majorities in the House and Senate. I will go one step further and say that if Republicans do not reform our budget process, we will deserve to lose our majorities.

[...]

I have never blogged before. But I understand readers can leave comments on each post and that these comments can be rather, ahem, blunt. So I am happy to entertain any questions, comments, or insults you might have for me at this time.

A few comments add credence to the suspicion that McCain's apparent reconciliation with the ‘religious right’ may have damaged him.

As far as I can tell, his position has not altered substantially since the 2000 primaries.

I get the impression though that the influence of the ‘religious right’ is falling.

Posted by from the blogosphere at 07:42 PM | Permalink

Posted at Hillary Haaawww!!!! Hillary Haaawww!!!! - Spank Zone:

 Whenever you need the latest on the VA General Assembly or other State Wide Happenings, VAConservative.com is a daily read for STD. 

It seems that Gov. Tim Kaine has had his "Earmarked" budget morsels "plucked" from the budget surplus rejected by the GA.  Get the scoop here. 

Posted by from the blogosphere at 06:58 PM | Permalink

Posted at Internal Monologue:


Just in case you forgot Sullivan was a conservative, he comes out with this: “I'm fine with Porkbusters, but it needs to be said again and again that pork is not our real problem. Middle-class entitlements are.” He’s right that entitlement programs form an enormous portion of Federal Spending, and dwarf even the egregious amounts of pork these Republicans have feasted on, but I wouldn’t call entitlements “our real problem”. I would say our real problems from a fiscal point of view are our broken system of paying for health care (which will cause Medicare costs to skyrocket) and Republican eagerness for tax give-aways to those who suffer from having enormous amounts of money. Republican propaganda has turned this country into a bunch of revenue-sissies who want government to do a bunch of stuff but don’t want to actually pay for it. Sorry folks, stuff costs money (especially wars). No amount of Club for Growth talking point recital is going to change that.
That being said, I don’t think looking at Social Security and other entitlements should be the “third rail” of politics. Maybe some adjustments will have to be made to ensure their financial solvency, and we should discuss them sanely and calmly. But I have to say I’m deeply suspicious of the motives of Republicans on this subject. They say entitlement programs are in a “financial crisis”, yet they are very willing to eliminate the estate tax and the capital gains tax. I guess a “crisis” means it’s OK to cut middle class entitlements, but rich people’s money is sacrosanct. It’s this regressive agenda that makes me dig in my heels whenever Republicans attack social programs in the name of financial responsibility.

...read complete post at Internal Monologue

Posted by from the blogosphere at 04:54 PM | Permalink

Posted at RIGHTWINGSPARKLE:

John McCain is blogging over at Porkbusters. You can leave comments. Please feel free to mention me...;-)


...read complete post at RIGHTWINGSPARKLE

Posted by from the blogosphere at 04:48 PM | Permalink

Posted at Republican National Convention Blog NYC 2004:


Technorati Tags: President Bush and White House or Line-Item Veto and Manhattan Institute or Congress and Office of Management and Budget or Rob Portman and Senate Appropriations Committee or Senate Budget Committee and VIDEO or small business and Congressional Research Service or budgetary reform program

President Discusses Line-Item Veto, FULL STREAMING VIDEO, JW Marriott Hotel, Washington, D.C. 10:58 A.M. EDT. Fact Sheet: The Legislative Line-Item Veto: Constitutional, Effective, and Bipartisan

President George W. Bush gestures as he addresses an audience Tuesday, June 27, 2006 in Washington, calling on the U.S. Senate and members of the House of Representatives to quickly pass proposed Line-Item Veto legislation. White House photo by Paul Morse.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Thanks for letting me come by to say a few words. Larry, thanks for the introduction. I do want to congratulate the Manhattan Institute for being a think tank for new ideas and better ways for our nation to handle some of the problems we face. I appreciate your thoughts, I appreciate your works. For those of you who support the Manhattan Institute, I thank you for supporting them. For those of you who serve on the Board of Trustees, thanks for helping. And thanks for inviting me here today.
I want to talk about our economy. I want to talk about ways that we can -- the executive branch can work with the Congress to convince the American people we're being wise about how we spend our money. One of the things I want to assure you is that I believe that this country ought not to fear the future. I believe we ought to put good policy in place to shape the future. And by that I mean we shouldn't fear global competition. We shouldn't fear a world that is more interacted. We should resist temptations to protect ourselves from trade policies around the world. We should resist the temptation to isolate ourselves. We have too much to offer for the stability and peace and welfare of the world than to shirk our duties and to not accept an international community....

Posted by from the blogosphere at 04:44 PM | Permalink

Posted at HUMAN EVENTS ONLINE - Conservative News, Views & Books:

The quote of the day goes to my buddy Andy Roth at the Club for Growth, as he proves how overwhelmingly bipartisan our congressmen are when it comes to doling out the pork.

People think Washington is just a big arena where polarized Democrats and Republicans sling mud and battle it out with each other. But when it comes to spending the people’s hard earned tax dollars, Congress is all about bipartisan hugs and kisses. Part of the reason for the lovefest is because earmarks are doled out, thus making it harder for members to vote NO.

A popular misconception today -- fueled in part by bipartisan criticism over the war, runaway spending, and the media's exasperation with GOP control of Congress and the White House -- is that our political parties are more divided now than ever.

This is wrong. As Andy correctly spells out, our politicians are as chummy as ever. We would do well to recognize that the acute disconnect we perceive exists not between the Democrats and Republicans, per se, but more so between the respective parties and the constituents they claim to represent.

...read complete post at HUMAN EVENTS ONLINE - Conservative News, Views & Books

Posted by from the blogosphere at 04:43 PM | Permalink

Posted at HUMAN EVENTS ONLINE - Conservative News, Views & Books:

Yesterday, President Bush criticized House Democrats for not supporting the passage of the Legislative Line Item Veto Act, which passed 247-172, and at the same time urged the Senate to vote in its favor.

Only 35 Democrats joined the majority of Republicans who voted for the bill, something Bush was upset by, reports the AP:

"I was disappointed, frankly, though that more Democrats didn't vote for the bill, especially those that are calling for fiscal discipline in Washington, D.C.," Bush said in a speech to members of the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank based in New York. "I mean, you can't call for fiscal discipline on the one hand and then not pass a tool to enhance fiscal discipline on the other hand. You can't have it both ways, it seems like to me."

Here's hoping Senate Democrats have the guts to cross party lines this next month when they have a chance to vote on the much-needed scalpel.

"When the president sees an earmark or a spending provision that is wasteful or unnecessary, he can send it back to the Congress," Bush said. "And Congress is then required to hold a prompt up-or-down vote on whether to retain the targeted spending. In other words, the Congress is still in the process."

Bush met earlier Tuesday Sens. Bill Frist (R.-Tenn.), Thad Cochran (R.-Miss.), John McCain, (R.-Ariz.), Judd Gregg, (R.-N.H.), Susan Collins (R.-Maine.), Kit Bond (R.-Mo.) and Ben Nelson (D.-Neb.) -- all of whom he feels will be influential in the upcoming debate on the issue.

...read complete post at HUMAN EVENTS ONLINE - Conservative News, Views & Books

Posted by from the blogosphere at 04:31 PM | Permalink

Club for Growth

...read complete post at The Club For Growth - Blog

Posted by at 04:19 PM | Permalink

Glenn Reynolds

...read complete post at Instapundit.com

Posted by at 03:48 PM | Permalink

Posted at A Far Right Conservative Point Of View:

Breitbart Is Reporting:Bush Urges Senate to Pass Line-Item VetoWASHINGTON

President Bush, urging the Senate to pass the line-item veto, on Tuesday criticized House Democrats who didn't back the measure even though they've called for federal spending restraint.
A line-item veto would allow the president to cut certain provisions in spending bills without vetoing the entire measure. The House passed such legislation last week 247-172. Thirty-five Democrats joined with most Republicans in voting for the bill.
"I was disappointed, frankly, though that more Democrats didn't vote for the bill, especially those that are calling for fiscal discipline in Washington, D.C.," Bush said in a speech to members of the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank based in New York. "I mean, you can't call for fiscal discipline on the one hand and then not pass a tool to enhance fiscal discipline on the other hand. You can't have it both ways, it seems like to me."
The bill faces an uncertain future in the Senate. Democrats generally oppose the measure, and not all Republicans are excited about the idea. "We need to set politics aside" and pass a line-item veto, Bush said about the measure that the GOP embraces as a way to demonstrate election-year resolve to rein in federal spending.
Lawmakers from both parties who have reservations about the line-item veto contend it would shift too much power to the president, allowing him to try to cut projects proposed by his political enemies, or to use the threat of cutting projects in exchange for favorable votes on legislation the White House desires.
The bill that passed the House is a watered-down version of a more sweeping law that the Supreme Court struck down in 1998, saying it took too much spending authority away from Congress. Bush said the new legislation would meet the court's constitutional requirements.
The new version would let the president try to kill individual items contained in spending or tax bills that he otherwise signs into law. Congress would be required to vote on those specific items again. A simple majority in both the House and the Senate could override the president's objections.
"When the president sees an earmark or a spending provision that is wasteful or unnecessary, he can send it back to the Congress," Bush said. "And Congress is then required to hold a prompt up-or-down vote on whether to retain the targeted spending. In other words, the Congress is still in the process."
Earlier, Bush met with senators at the White House to discuss the line-item veto. The group included Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., and Sens. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., Thad Cochran, R-Miss., Susan M. Collins, R-Maine, Kit Bond, R-Mo., John McCain, R-Ariz., and Ben Nelson, D-Neb.
Nelson said he told the president that he used the line-item veto to rein in irresponsible spending when he was governor of Nebraska. "It works," said Nelson, governor from 1991 to 1999.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I sure hope this passes. President Bush has been held hostage to all these bills that have gone before his desk because within those bills are things he needs for the Country, The War on Terror, and other things. Now if this passes, he will be able to cut the pork out of whatever bill he needs to and start using some Line Item Veto Power. PASS THIS BILL!!!

...read complete post at A Far Right Conservative Point Of View

Posted by from the blogosphere at 01:15 PM | Permalink

Posted at Hawken Blog - Political Discussion From Across The Spectrum:

Senator McCain is Engaging the Blogosphere
It is good to know that Senator McCain has decided to engage the blogosphere. He has chosen a good subject too - the abundance of pork in our budgeting process. Unfortunately, McCain has not hired the best writers to deliver his message. Look at this mouthful of a sentence:Where corruption can easily occur and where profligate spending is presently out of control is when a lobbyist, knowing the rules of the game, receives special treatment for his or her client, irrespective of the public interest, simply by enjoying a relationship with a member of Congress who can, by this process we call earmarking, provide their clients a benefit that is seldom scrutinized by Congress as a whole.Nonetheless, I agree with his greater message.


Tags: John McCain, porkbusters

...read complete post at Hawken Blog - Political Discussion From Across The Spectrum

Posted by from the blogosphere at 12:44 PM | Permalink

Posted at Your Philosophy Sucks:

Over at Porkbusters, they have a guest post from Sen. John McCain (R-Batshit Insane). I have no great desire to disagree with the substance of his message. It is agreed around YPS that the government spends way too much money and needs to quit. It will end up doing damage to the Republican party. The grassroots, as exemplified by J and other folks, are pissed off. Whether the anger can be

...read complete post at Your Philosophy Sucks

Posted by from the blogosphere at 11:22 AM | Permalink

Posted at Thatedeguy:

Senator John McCain appearantly dropped off a letter to the people who run PorkBusters. In the letter he rants a little against his party, saying that they deserve to lose their majority. He then goes on to rant a little longer on “Earmarks” and the seems to call for support on the Line [...]

...read complete post at Thatedeguy

Posted by from the blogosphere at 11:17 AM | Permalink

Posted at Liberty and Justice:


Senator John McCain contributed a guest post to Porkbusters today called We Need To Stop This... Now. As usual, he sounds quite good to me. As you all know I am what we call a 'liberal conservative' in Europe. Government spending wise this means that I strongly believe in fiscal responsibility and / thus small government. Senator McCain, as far as I can tell, shares that conviction.

Among the core values we Republicans share with Pres. Reagan is a passion for free market principles such as lower taxes and opposition to unnecessary government regulation; and, very importantly, belief that the government that governs best governs least. I don't think any Reagan Republican would disagree that fiscal restraint and small government are bedrock principles of conservatives.
So why has my party, the party of small government, lately adopted the practices of our opponents who believe the bigger the government the better? I'm afraid it's because at times we value our incumbency more than our principles. We came to office to reduce the size of government. Lately, we have increased the size of government in order to stay in office. The editors of National Review have argued -- and I agree with them -- that unless Republicans curb government spending by reforming the budget process, we may lose our majorities in the House and Senate. I will go one step further and say that if Republicans do not reform our budget process, we will deserve to lose our majorities.

He is completely right. Not only do American conservatives strongly object to the current spending by the Bush administration, but moderates, the ones probable of casting the deciding vote, do so as well. For Sen. McCain it is, of course, of crucial importance to get the Republican Party's conservatives to back him up. He needs their vote in order to stand a chance of becoming the next U.S. President.
This blog-post from Sen. McCain was focused mostly on 'earmarks'. Or 'pork'. Doing something against these Earmarks is of course an important tool if one wants to reseize government spending. But as Taylor W. Buley writes in One Toke Over the Line-Item it cannot possibly be regarded as more than a good start:
Sure, the $27 billion of wasteful spending that could be prevented each year by a line-item veto is a start, but total discretionary spending is up 35.8 percent in the first five years of the Bush administration. That's more than any other president’s pushed for, or consented to, in recent history (PDF).

Also see Ankle Biting Pundits

Blue Crab Boulevard

...read complete post at Liberty and Justice

Posted by from the blogosphere at 11:13 AM | Permalink

Posted at Blue Crab Boulevard:


For pork. Long-time readers know I am not a fan of John McCain, primarily because of his stance on - or rather against - free speech. In a guest commentary on the Porkbusters site, though, McCain makes a lot of sense.
Let me use last year's highway bill to [...]]]>

...read complete post at Blue Crab Boulevard

Posted by from the blogosphere at 11:02 AM | Permalink

Posted at rantings of a random scrub...:


Senator John McCain is expressing small-government sentiments that could almost convince me to support him in his (inevitable) presidential bid... if it weren't for his complete disregard for first amendment rights embodied in the abomination known as McCain-Feingold.


...read complete post at rantings of a random scrub...

Posted by from the blogosphere at 10:15 AM | Permalink

Posted at Prometheus 6 | All respect and no restraint:

Why does Bush need a line item veto when he has his signing statements? if Bush can sign legislation outlawing torture with a note that he's free to ignore the law when he judges it necessary, why can't he do it with budget bills too?

The point: the request is an admission that he does not currently have the power to excise those bits of the law he doesn't like, respect, agree with or whatever. That undercuts any claim that an equivalent (those signing statements) is legitimate.

President to Press for Line-Item Veto Power
By JIM RUTENBERG

WASHINGTON, June 27 — With his proposed overhaul of the nation's immigration laws now in legislative limbo, President Bush focused on another priority on Tuesday, to secure Congressional approval of a presidential line-item veto.

Speaking to a conservative group here in the morning, Mr. Bush said he would use a line-item veto to eliminate spending on the pet projects called earmarks that lawmakers attach to spending bills.

read more

Posted by from the blogosphere at 09:58 AM | Permalink

Posted at Lamplighter:

For a mere $68.2 million you too could live like royalty. The British Royal Public Finances reported that is the amount of tax money the British Royal family spent last year. Appears to be good work if you can get it...

At least the Brits are honest about this earmark, unlike the money Congress was trying to earmark for the bridge to nowhere and other pet projects.

...read complete post at Lamplighter

Posted by from the blogosphere at 09:52 AM | Permalink

Glenn Reynolds

...read complete post at Instapundit.com

Posted by at 07:14 AM | Permalink

Posted at MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:

John McCain has written his first blog entry ever, and it’s posted at Porkbusters.

The total number of earmarks in spending bills has grown from 4,126 in 1994, the last year of Democratic control, to 14,404 in 2004. That’s a 240 percent increase in ten years time. In dollars, the cost borne by taxpayers for earmarks [...]]]>

...read complete post at MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy

Posted by from the blogosphere at 05:00 AM | Permalink

Posted at The Unknown Candidate:

I have more sympathy for the devil than for Dowd's current fluff.

Then again, everyone deserves a break every once in a while from the wacko-world of Dubya. Let's just hope Dowd's vacation from political commentary is a short one.

With Ann Coulter once foaming at the mouth, we need all the intelligent, fact-based sarcasm and satire we can get--and pronto.


Sympathy for the Devil
By Maureen Dowd
The New York TimesI considered myself quite a benevolent boss until I learned that my old assistant Marc was secretly slipping Saint-John's-wort into my smoothies in hopes of perking up my mood.

Maybe I just seemed benign compared with a fellow columnist, whose assistant had such a bad panic attack when her boss was due back from vacation that she had to be rushed to the emergency room, where she was surprised to find herself part of an epidemic of palpitating assistants dreading the return of their bosses.

Or maybe I figured I was a peach because I only asked assistants to help select my cellphone ring — 50 Cent's "In Da Club" or the Fox Sunday football theme? — rather than throwing a cell at them while grabbing their throat, biting their lip and head-butting them, Naomi Campbell-style.

Whatever tart remarks I'd made, I was not in a league with David Spade, whose assistant, Skippy, got so agitated that he shot the star — who was playing a snide assistant on "Just Shoot Me" — with a stun gun. (From now on, my first requirement for assistants is that they always show up for work unarmed.)

So, given my relatively angelic self-image, I was surprised, at a screening of "The Devil Wears Prada," to find myself sympathizing with the devil — Meryl Streep's Miranda Priestly, the Anna Wintoury editrix of a top fashion magazine who is described as "a notorious sadist, and not in the good way."

Is it so wrong of Miranda to expect her assistant, Andy Sachs (played by Anne Hathaway), to know how to spell Gabbana, reach Donatella and ban freesia? Is it so bad to want help getting a warm rhubarb compote for Michael Kors? Or to have an assistant who knows what an eyelash curler is?

This was, after all, the business they had chosen, as they say in "The Godfather." It might be heresy for Bergdorf blondes and Park Avenue princesses like the Sykes sisters — Plum, Peach or Apricot — but it doesn't matter if my assistant mixes up camisoles and cardigans in conversation, as she has been known to do. Here in the nation's capital, size 6 is not "the new 14," but a cause for celebration; a knowledge of cloture, not cloche, matters; eyelashes attract less attention than earmarks; and red Fox TV is more essential than red fox Fendi.

It's not that I agree with the contention, espoused in the movie, that if the malevolent Miranda were a man, no one would notice anything except how good she was at her job. Certainly, strong women are more easily caricatured as castrating and shrill termagants and harridans. But that doesn't mean that there aren't some powerful women who are bullies, just as there are male bosses who are bullies. The Devil can wear Timberland.

It just seems better, this time, to side with the Wicked Stepmother than the opportunistic Cinderella.

After a high-fashion makeover, Andy — the character based on Lauren Weisberger, the tall, lithe blonde who worked as an assistant to Anna Wintour at Vogue before writing her whiny hiss-and-tell best-seller — decides to reject the high-end porn of the fashion world, where everyone is "one stomach flu away" from their goal weight, and return to her real values.

Unfortunately, this Cinderella's primary value turned out to be voyeurism, profiting by keeping her nose to the glass and poaching off her glamorous former boss's life. The only thing worse than the Devil who wears Prada is a person who profits from the fact that the Devil wears Prada.

Even with a dazzling performance by lovely Meryl Streep, who tucks the picture in her Chanel bag and runs off on her Manolo stilettos with it, "the story is glossy junk begat of just-plain junk," as Lisa Schwarzbaum writes in Entertainment Weekly.

"The Devil Wears Prada" is not "All About Eve." As a friend noted, it's more like Rona Jaffe's "The Best of Everything" with fashion, a fun look at what it's like to be young, servile and breathlessly climbing in Manhattan, dealing with a tough woman for a boss and the struggle not to let your professional ambition supersede your romantic ambition. (Except for Faye Dunaway in "Network," Hollywood de-eroticizes women in power.)

Eve Harrington plotted to be rich and famous by becoming Margo Channing. In this age of media exhibitionism, Lauren Weisberger plotted to be rich and famous by writing about how she didn't want to become Anna Wintour. The enterprise is no less vampiric, second-order cruelty as opposed to first-order cruelty.

Whether Anna and Miranda are sacred monsters, at least they are themselves. It's more admirable to be the beast to which the parasite attaches itself than to be the parasite.

Photo credit: Maureen Dowd. (Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times)Technorati tags: Maureen Dowd, New York Times, Anna Wintour, Lauren Weisberger, "The Devil Wears Prada", news, commentary, op ed

...read complete post at The Unknown Candidate

Posted by from the blogosphere at 12:22 AM | Permalink

Posted at Super Friday Hangover:


By VOA News
27 June 2006

President Bush is again calling on the U.S. Senate to give him authority to remove certain items from bills before signing them into law.

Mr. Bush raised the issue Tuesday in a speech in Washington. It is called the line-item veto. He also talked about it Saturday in his weekly radio address.

The President said the move would help him get rid of wasteful spending measures tacked onto important legislation. He said those last-minute additions, known as earmarks, have grown more common in recent years.

President Clinton briefly had line-item veto authority before the Supreme Court struck it down as unconstitutional in 1998. The Court said it gave the president too much power.

House lawmakers on Thursday voted to grant President Bush a modified line-item veto that would allow Congress to approve or reject his changes before they become law.

Posted by from the blogosphere at 12:15 AM | Permalink

Posted at debitage: part of the core tool and scraper tradition:

To shift into a far more wonkish mode for a moment, I actually think President Bush's proposal for a line-item veto is excellent:

"When the president sees an earmark or spending provision that is wasteful or unnecessary, he can send it back to the Congress," Bush said. "And Congress is then required to hold a prompt up-or-down vote on whether to retain the targeted spending. In other words, the

...read complete post at debitage: part of the core tool and scraper tradition

Posted by from the blogosphere at 07:37 PM | Permalink

Posted at Don Surber:

By a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court upheld the First Amendment. Justices were all over the place as they struck down Vermont's ridiculous Campaign Deform Act of 1997, which holds that a campaign contribution of more than $200 is somehow a bribe that will unduly influence a candidate.

The problem is for 30 years Congress has had Incumbent Protection Acts disguised a s "campaign reform" that have made it more difficult for challengers to raise money. Re-election rates as high as 98% have been the rule over the last 30 years, thanks to campaign "reform."

For example, John Kerry and Jay Rockefeller are each in their 22nd year in the Senate. Both sit behind two of the longest serving senators in U.S. history. Bob Byrd just passed the recently expired Strom Thurmond as the longest serving senator in history. Ted Kennedy is only one term behind him.

John Dingell has been in the House for over 50 years.

The average House member is 54, the average senator is 60.

These seats are safe in large part because it is so difficult to raise money to oppose them.

This safety has fostered corruption. Yes, the campaign "reform" has allowed congressmen to kick back and accept all sorts of gratuities. Duke Cunningham gave contractors a menu of bribes. Jack Murtha's brother lobbies for earmarks. William J. Jefferson had $90,000 in his fridge. Talk about your cold cash.

But there is hope. With the Internet and cable TV, the cost of getting the message to voters has dropped considerably. The Swift Boat Veterans were able to get the truth out about John Kerry in 2004 despite a cone of silence on ABC, CBS, CNN and NBC.

Ridding the nation of Vermont's law is the first step. Here is hoping all these laws that promote the status quo at the polls are tossed out. "Congress shall make no law ..."

Remember?

UPDATE: Legal Fiction says the decision is so splintered, it is unreadable. And here I thought it was just me.

Curiously, 29% of Kossers (51 of 171) in this poll say: "Any limits on contributions and expenditures violate the First Amendment."

Linked to OUTSIDE THE BELTWAY and BASIL'S BLOG and JO'S CAFE and ADAM'S BLOG and FREEDOM WATCH and THIRD WORLD COUNTY and PLANCK'S CONSTANT. Thanks!

...read complete post at Don Surber

Posted by from the blogosphere at 04:17 PM | Permalink

Guest Contributor:
Senator John McCain

Last week I had the honor of speaking to a group of my fellow Republicans at the presidential library of one of my heroes -- President Ronald Reagan.

When I was first elected to Congress, I was one of many newly elected members who claimed with pride to be disciples of Ronald Reagan. I am as proud of that distinction today as I was then, and as admiring of the legacy of Pres. Reagan as I was once inspired by him to enlist as a foot soldier in his revolution to reform the practices and policies of our government.

Among the core values we Republicans share with Pres. Reagan is a passion for free market principles such as lower taxes and opposition to unnecessary government regulation; and, very importantly, belief that the government that governs best governs least. I don't think any Reagan Republican would disagree that fiscal restraint and small government are bedrock principles of conservatives.

So why has my party, the party of small government, lately adopted the practices of our opponents who believe the bigger the government the better? I'm afraid it's because at times we value our incumbency more than our principles. We came to office to reduce the size of government. Lately, we have increased the size of government in order to stay in office. The editors of National Review have argued -- and I agree with them -- that unless Republicans curb government spending by reforming the budget process, we may lose our majorities in the House and Senate. I will go one step further and say that if Republicans do not reform our budget process, we will deserve to lose our majorities.

In this post I would like to address earmarking; an abuse I know is not lost on a cohort calling itself "Porkbusters."

There is nothing inherently wrong with lobbying or with government officials meeting with lobbyists to consider their concerns as we make policies that affect the interests they represent. Where corruption can easily occur and where profligate spending is presently out of control is when a lobbyist, knowing the rules of the game, receives special treatment for his or her client, irrespective of the public interest, simply by enjoying a relationship with a member of Congress who can, by this process we call earmarking, provide their clients a benefit that is seldom scrutinized by Congress as a whole.

Let me use last year's highway bill to illustrate how the practice of earmarking has grown and become such a tempting target for abuse. In 1987, President Reagan vetoed a highway bill because it was ten billion dollars over his budget, and contained over a hundred earmarks. He remarked at the time of his veto that he hadn’t seen that much pork since he had "handed out blue ribbons at the Iowa State Fair." The highway bill we passed last year, and which the President signed into law, was twelve billion dollars over his request, and contained 6,731 earmarks, which included the now infamous "bridge to nowhere." That's quite an explosion in the growth of earmarks, which you have the privilege of paying for with your gas taxes. And it represents 6,371 separate opportunities for a lobbyist to ask a single member of Congress for a favor that the rest of Congress won't vote on and most members won’t even notice.

The total number of earmarks in spending bills has grown from 4,126 in 1994, the last year of Democratic control, to 14,404 in 2004. That's a 240 percent increase in ten years time. In dollars, the cost borne by taxpayers for earmarks has nearly doubled. That's not a record Ronald Reagan would have been proud of. And it's not a record Reagan Republicans should be proud of today. We need to stop this . . . now, and remember, as Ronald Reagan always remembered, that we were sent to Washington because of the principles we pledged to defend, not because our constituents thought we needed a change of address.

I have never blogged before. But I understand readers can leave comments on each post and that these comments can be rather, ahem, blunt. So I am happy to entertain any questions, comments, or insults you might have for me at this time.

Posted by N.Z. Bear at 03:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (85) | TrackBacks (2)

Posted at The End Of The World:

More incompetence from the GOP

The reverse Midas touch in action. Everything the GOP gets its hands on turns into a mess. International relations? Disaster. Iraq? Don't even ask. Earmarks 'til the cows come home and padding personal wealth? Where do we start? With total control over all three branches of the government in DC, the GOP has ruined FEMA so badly and now taxpayers are looking at paying the price (again) for GOP incompetence to the tune of a few billion dollars. Wow. There is no one to blame when the GOP owns everything.

If you want more of the same - more failed wars, more special interests, more scandals, more destroyed government programs - you should continue voting for the GOP. More of the same means more incompetence:

A hotel owner in Sugar Land, Tex., has been charged with submitting $232,000 in bills for phantom victims. And roughly 1,100 prison inmates across the Gulf Coast apparently collected more than $10 million in rental and disaster-relief assistance.

There are the bureaucrats who ordered nearly half a billion dollars worth of mobile homes that are still empty, and renovations for a shelter at a former Alabama Army base that cost about $416,000 per evacuee.

And there is the Illinois woman who tried to collect federal benefits by claiming she watched her two daughters drown in the rising New Orleans waters. In fact, prosecutors say, the children did not exist.

The tally of ignoble acts linked to Hurricane Katrina, pulled together by The New York Times from government audits, criminal prosecutions and Congressional investigations, could rise because the inquiries are under way. Even in Washington, a city accustomed to government bloat, the numbers are generating amazement.

Posted by from the blogosphere at 12:50 PM | Permalink

Posted at Confessions of a Dangerous Mind... Iraq:


Hello all,It occurred to me the other day that I haven’t posted a blog in a while. So what did I do? Like any red blooded American, I procrastinated. Fortunately for the blog, just as I was sitting down to enjoy some of the 4th season of the Soprano’s, the power on the pad went out. In the “balmy” 120 degree summer temps that occur here daily our AC units have been demanding ever more electricity from the old-and-getting-older generators that are in a constant state of disrepair and are seemingly perpetually being adjusted. So as I sit here in the dark typing this entry, a small army of contractors are working on our generator, racing the sun as the accumulated AC in our CHUs dissipates rapidly.
As for the lack of blog entries lately I must apologize. I have meant to keep up with it better than I have, but several factors have contributed to my delinquency. First is that we have been rather busy lately. Not busy in the “a lot of enemy activity” sense mind you, but busy in the “patrols are manned by scared short timers” sense. That is to say that most of our days lately have been filled with gearing up and going out on “missions” that turn out to be small piles of trash that we drive half an hour to get to, just so that we can immediately recognize that there is no real threat and watch as EOD kicks the “suspicious” piece of garbage off the side of the road. Actually this reality has been our misfortune so often lately that EOD has taken to actually claiming the piece of trash and brining it back to the FOB with us so that we don’t end up getting called out an hour or two later to discard the same piece of trash that has blown back onto the road. Granted, we would rather go out a hundred times to pick up trash than once to pick up a soldier… but I feel there should be at least an attempt to justify calling us out. We are, after all, a limited resource. After several days now of intermittent sleep and very little “actual” work we have begun to feel like we are being subjected to undue torture.
The other reason I have been delinquent in my blogging is that of our need to protect our tenuous relationship with reality. Let me explain. Being over here, while bearing all the earmarks of life; eating, drinking, sleeping, day to day life is not really like life as we have ever known it. In fact much of our life here seems to be dictated by pure fate. Constantly being on call we never know if we will be busy or slow from one day to the next and this has bred in us a sort of reverence for things out of our control. I guess you could say that we have developed a set of superstitions along with a sort of “sixth sense” about the patterns that emerge in our lives. Many times it has been the case that the mere mention of a mission and simultaneously a “pang” will shoot up each of our spines… and sure enough half an hour later we get a call. Either that or a visitor will arrive and bring with them a tide of missions that seeks to wash through and leave only just enough time to catch quick naps between missions rather than actual sleep. I know it may sound somewhat ridiculous but this has ultimately caused us to behave like a ball player who wears the same socks at every game, by which I mean that we try to deviate as little as possible from our daily routines in order not to disturb the delicate balance that the mission gods so hate disrupted. I know that explanation doesn’t hold much water when held up to scrutiny, but suffice to say that when we are steady and get on a roll, so to speak, the days seem to wash together and time seems to pass a little more efficiently and without incident. And that, come to think of it, pretty much sums up our current situation.
So, if that is our current situation than this next observation would detail our immediate future. We spend our time now much as we have in the past… lifting weights, watching movies, reading books etc. Only there seems to be more and more something looming in the back of our heads. It hasn’t fully developed yet, but the beginnings are definitely taking root. What I am referring to is “short timers syndrome”. Our team isn’t quite there yet… but it is all around us. Several of our counterparts as well as this entire FOB are gearing up towards leaving. Each passing day soldiers are acting more and more like seniors in springtime. The changes are not drastic however, they are more discreet and gradual… so as to almost be imperceptible. Only a few things really stand out, like becoming more and more risk adverse (hence the upswing in frivolous missions). The only recent manifestation among our team is a propensity to have wild mood swings. In recent days our moods are most often upbeat and optimistic, after all we have never been closer to going home as we are right now. But then again on certain days it suddenly seems as though life is playing out a mathematical/philosophical question posed a long time ago that is:

If there is a finite distance (or time in this case) between you and an object it stands to reason that the distance could be broken into fractions. Now take that distance and halve it, you have just moved half way to your destination. In theory every time you move you do have to cross that plane which would constitute the next halfway point between you and your destination, however, each time you do so the distance between you and the next halfway point becomes ever smaller. Continuing on like this for eternity can you ever actually reach the finish line?

Now obviously we live in a world unconstrained by the limitations of this theory, so inevitably we will ultimately reach our goal. But I said all that just to impress the sort of feeling that we get when we add up the days we have left and when all’s taken into account we could have sworn that we were further along than we are. On one such melancholy day recently SGT J put it like this… he said “no matter how you slice it… it’s not tomorrow”. It’s a strange sort of feeling to get, and hard to describe too. Actually more and more it seems as though as the excitement about going home builds and builds, and the frustration and anxiety about not being home yet accumulates as well… that basically everything sort of washes out and just becomes a type of background static, emotional white noise. Perhaps that is what they mean by the “thousand yard stare”. I had always assumed that that came from being scarred by war but perhaps not. Perhaps its not the unseen enemy your looking for out there… its just some future time that isn’t now, some idealized memory projected into the future, where your loved ones are close, laughter fills the air, and a cool breeze stirs the trees.

I love and miss you all… only another couple months to the finish line, no matter how you want to cut it.

...read complete post at Confessions of a Dangerous Mind... Iraq

Posted by from the blogosphere at 08:31 AM | Permalink

Posted at FreePA.org | Promoting Freedom in Pennsylvania:

John Fund wonders what the future holds for Democrats if Murtha is one of their leaders.

Murtha on foreign policy:

Mr. Murtha has been sticking his foot in his mouth a lot lately. He accused Marines in Iraq of murdering civilians "in cold blood," contradicted himself in the same breath by saying they had "overreacted," and asserted that higher-ups covered up the purported crime without backing his statements up. He told a startled Tim Russert of NBC that U.S. troops withdrawn from Iraq could be "redeployed" to Okinawa, Japan, whence they could return "very quickly" to Baghdad--which is 4,899 miles away. And more than once he has offered these examples of presidential leadership: "In Beirut, President Reagan changed direction. In Somalia, President Clinton changed direction."

Here's another take on the change of direction in Somalia: "After a few blows . . . [the U.S.] rushed out of Somalia in shame and disgrace, dragging the bodies of its soldiers." That was Osama bin Laden, in an ABC interview in 1998, the same year al Qaeda blew up the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, murdering more than 220. Two years later he struck at the U.S.S Cole off Yemen and killed 17 sailors. The next year his suicide bombers hit the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and killed more than 3,000 Americans.

Murtha on reform and corruption:

If Jack Murtha, a backroom operator who is blunder-prone when speaking publicly, is Democrats' idea of fresh leadership, the party is in real trouble. Far from advancing the Democratic argument that Republicans have bred a "culture of corruption" while in power, Mr. Murtha's leadership bid would open a Pandora's box of questions about his own record.

In 1980, prosecutors named Mr. Murtha an "unindicted co-conspirator" in the Abscam scandal. The FBI captured him on tape saying he wasn't interested in taking a $50,000 payment from agents posing as Arab sheiks "at this point," but he was open to further discussions. The House Ethics Committee cleared him, but E. Barrett Prettyman, the committee's special counsel for the Abscam probe, questioned the panel's competence, likening it to "a misdemeanor court faced with a multiple murder." Mr. Prettyman abruptly resigned his post the same afternoon the committee voted to clear Mr. Murtha. While Mr. Prettyman continues to refuse to discuss the case, he told Roll Call newspaper in 1990 that it would be "a logical conclusion" that he resigned over the committee's exoneration of Mr. Murtha.

Finally, Murtha on earmarks (and corruption):

Mr. Murtha has been front and center in the controversy over earmarks, the individual portions of pork members of Congress often secretly secure for their districts or favored constituents. A Harper's magazine study has concluded that "the most effective ally for the earmark-seeker is a lobbyist who is actually related, by blood or marriage, to a powerful member of an appropriations committee."

Rep. Murtha is the ranking Democratic member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee and for the past three years has been the House's top recipient of defense industry cash. Therefore, few in Washington are surprised that his lobbyist brother, Robert "Kit" Murtha, is an enormously successful "earmark specialist" for the Beltway firm KSA Consulting. In recent years, Kit Murtha has brought in a mother lode of earmarks for at least 16 defense manufacturers with business before the Appropriations Committee.

Last year the Los Angeles Times reported that "most of KSA's defense contractor clients hired the firm in hopes of securing funding from Rep. Murtha's subcommittee, according to lobbying records and interviews. And most retained the firm after Kit Murtha became a senior partner in 2002." Kit Murtha told the Times that he saw Rep. Murtha only infrequently but said the congressman knew he was a KSA lobbyist. "I don't think that influences him," Kit said of his brother. "I certainly would hope not."

Have I mentioned that Murtha has an opponent?

...read complete post at FreePA.org | Promoting Freedom in Pennsylvania

Posted by from the blogosphere at 10:15 PM | Permalink

Posted at Peoria Pundit:

Not only did Peoria's newspaper of record run an article about Ray LaHood's defense of earmarks -- also known as -- pork barrel spending and above the fold on page 1 --- they ran two editorials that actually make sense.

They not only correctly and rationally present a case against a Constitutional amendment that would prohibit flag burning, they also argue ...

...read complete post at Peoria Pundit

Posted by from the blogosphere at 04:00 PM | Permalink

Posted at AlphaPatriot -- Observations of a Reformed Liberal:

The Club for Growth blog identifies the 15 "Republicans" that voted against giving the president the power to send individual budget items back to congress to force a vote on that item. In other words, these are the 15 "Republicans" that voted in favor of earmarks, big government and continued congressional waste of our taxdollars: LawmakerLawmakerLawmaker Aderholt (AL-04)Lewis, Jerry (CA-41)Rogers, Mike D. (AL-03) Buyer (IN-04)Northup (KY-03)Simmons (CT-02) Emerson (MO-08)Otter (ID-01)Simpson (ID-02) Hobson (OH-07)Paul (TX-14)Sweeney (NY-20) Jones, W. (NC-03)Rogers, H. (KY-05)Walsh (NY-25) Those with a gray background in the table above actually sit on the powerful Appropriations Committee. And so the Club for Growth offers the following points in their analysis: 9 out of the 15 GOP "NO" votes came from appropriators. With 36 GOPers on the Appropriations Committee, this still means that 25% of GOP appropriators "failed to give up even a modest amount of their now unchecked power" (including the Chairman, Rep. Jerry Lewis). Only 2 of the 29 Dem appropriators voted "Yes" on the line item veto, meaning 93% of Democrats who spend our money voted to keep the power to spend without further restraint. Ron Paul from Texas is the one that puzzles me the most. Technorati Tags: RINO Watch, Wasting Taxpayer Money, Line Item Veto, United States Budget, Appropriations Committee, Club for Growth....

...read complete post at AlphaPatriot -- Observations of a Reformed Liberal

Posted by from the blogosphere at 02:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Posted at HUMAN EVENTS ONLINE - Conservative News, Views & Books:

Rep. Jeff Flake (R.-Ariz.) has made quite a name for himself as a fiscal hawk during his tenure in Congress -- more than ever during the past few weeks.

Flake announced today that he will be targeting pork projects attached to the Science-State-Justice-Commerce (SSJC) Appropriations bill, which is scheduled to be discussed by the House starting Tuesday. The congressman said he has drafted amendments to block the following earmarks:

• $500,000 for the JARI Workforce Development Program and Small Business Technology Center
• $200,000 for the Oil Region Alliance of Business, Industry and Tourism
• $1,000,000 Southern and Eastern Kentucky Tourism Development Association
• $750,000 for Fairplex Trade and Conference Center
• $250,000 for Rochester, NY, Tooling and Machining Association for a workforce development program
• $300,000 for the Bronx Council for marketing of local business arts initiatives
• $150,000 for the Arthur Avenue Retail Market for local business requirements and improvements
• $400,000 for Wisconsin Procurement Initiative
• $800,000 for JARI for a regional business incubator
• $900,000 for Fairmont State University for a small business initiative

To read about Flake's attacks on earmarks in the past go here, here and here.

...read complete post at HUMAN EVENTS ONLINE - Conservative News, Views & Books

Posted by from the blogosphere at 02:22 PM | Permalink

Posted at AMERICAblog: Because a great nation deserves the truth:

Yes, Hastert netted $2 million as a result of his own earmark. This is what happens when one part controls the ENTIRE federal government - the Republicans have the White House, the Congress and the Supreme Court. And anyone is surprised that years of that control have made them corrupt?

...read complete post at AMERICAblog: Because a great nation deserves the truth

Posted by from the blogosphere at 01:18 PM | Permalink

Posted at The Richmond Democrat:


Richmond, Virginia -- June 26, 2006
Republicans control the White House, the Senate, the House of Representatives, and, arguably, the Supreme Court of the United States. Yet they claim that this is not enough to prevent out of control federal spending. Their solution? To transfer more budget power to the President.
Republicans want to give the President a line item veto; the ability to cut spending from a bill approved by Congress. In theory, this gives the President the ability to cut abusive spending. In reality, it would give the President a lever to control the federal budget. Don't want to support my war? Fine, I'll cut funding for Medicare.
Under the Republican majority the abuse of earmarks for pet projects has exploded, and Bush's War in Iraq hasn't exactly been cheap either. But with majorities in every branch of the federal government, the Republican Party has had all the power it needed to restrict spending, had it chosen to. Something else is at work here.
The Republican proposal to shift control of the budget to the President is in fact nothing more than another power grab on behalf of Bush's runaway executive. Bush is looking to innoculate himself against the coming Democratic congressional victories in November 2006.
If the Democrats win control of Congress this year they will have several options, the most obvious being impeachment. But impeachment is opposed by many Democrats and would certainly be opposed by the overwhelming majority of Republicans. Impeachment is seen as potentially too divisive and could cause real damage to the political process.
What is more likely is that a new Democratic majority in Congress will seek to use the power of the purse to rein in the excesses of the Bush administration. Many of Bush's more extreme programs would likely see their funding disappear. Bush would, in effect, be neutered; the ultimate lame duck.
The Republican attempt to transfer budget control to the President would further undermine the perogatives of Congress. It could also lead to an even greater political crisis. If Democrats win control of both houses of Congress only to find that their hands are tied and they are unable to rein in Bush via the power of the purse, then Democratic moderates might be forced to take another look at the need for impeachment.
You can read more about it here.

...read complete post at The Richmond Democrat

Posted by from the blogosphere at 10:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Posted at Hard Astarboard:

A cost-of-living raise for Congress?

Congress is quietly moving to give itself a 2% cost-of-living raise next year, prompting complaints that lawmakers are trying to hide their wage boost.

A provision that would give cost-of-living adjustments to various federal officials — raising lawmakers' pay to $168,500 next year — is tucked into a bill the House of Representatives passed this month to fund the Department of Transportation and other agencies.

Well, I suppose I can see where the cost of living has increased to the point that $168k and change might be a little tough to survive on, those lunches at the Watergate and Sans Souci and trysts at the Hay Adams can add up, and I doubt that the likes of Teddy K imbibe anything less than the best, but... I've always believed that some sort of merit should be attached to a pay hike, and I'm having a really tough time thinking of any reasion to give Congress a raise based on merit, or based on anything else for that matter.

Of late, they've been behaving as though they work for themselves rather than functioning as employees of the electorate and their output has been questionable as such. Instead of giving them a raise, why not just give the money to some of the criminal aliens they want to give amnesty to, so they can send it home to help bail Vicente Fox out of some of his myriad economic failures? Or use the money for their next pork barrel "earmark"?

If it were up to me, all proposals for federal pay increases on all levels would appear on the ballot on the relevant election day and we, the voters, would be the yea'ers or nayers. We are, after all, their employers. How often do we see employees anyplace else getting to sit down and vote on their pay raises?

The legislation now moves to the Senate, where Democrats such as Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts are making the raise an issue.

Feingold said last week that he'll try to stop the pay increase; Clinton has authored a bill that would tie increases in congressional pay to increases in the minimum wage. Congress hasn't raised the minimum wage — $5.15 an hour, or $10,700 a year — since 1997. During the same period, annual congressional pay has increased by $31,000.

Tom Schatz, president of the watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste, would prefer to see congressional pay hikes tied to the federal deficit, now projected at $300 billion or more. "If we have a balanced budget, maybe then they deserve a pay raise," he says.

It's got to be a cold day in hell, because on this I agree with the liberals in Congress who plan to fight the raise. I don't agree with Hillary's proposal, her plan is merely a shrewd carrot and stick approach to giving Congress an incentive to raise the minimum wage, but as far as Feingold and Kennedy(spit!) are concerned, well....

I think Tom Schatz has the right idea: Tie congressional pay raises into their performance, their spending habits being a great place to start, since whenever they spend money, it's our money they're spending.

On the supposed other side of the coin:

Congressional pay has long been a sensitive matter, in part because it's substantial. At $165,200 this year, members of Congress earn roughly four times the salary of the average American. On the other hand, they earn the same as federal district judges, deputy Cabinet secretaries, heads of major agencies and some senior federal bureaucrats. Supreme Court justices, top congressional leaders and Cabinet secretaries make more; President Bush earns $400,000 a year.

Some outside experts argue that lawmakers aren't nearly as affluent as their six-figure incomes might lead constituents to believe. "They do have some unusual expenses," says Stephen Hess, a Brookings Institution scholar who studies Congress. Chief among them: the need to maintain homes in two places, one of which is in one of the most expensive areas in the country. According to the National Association of Realtors, Washington, D.C., was the 11th priciest housing market in the nation last year.

"When you take into consideration the cost of living in two cities, the salary is average at best," says Jim Chapman, a former congressman who now works as a lobbyist.

Sure, but how many members of Congress live in middle class neighborhoods and anywhere near as modestly as most of their constituents?

I own a seven room home(not counting the laundry room, kitchen and two full baths) in a residential area in Charlotte, NC, and it costs me about $600.00 a month, give or take, to keep the bills paid, maybe another $600.00 to buy food and other necessities, and I eat well. Too well, in fact. Not counting entertainment and social issues, my annual living expenses, including homeowner's insurance and property taxes, come in at around $25,000.00 a year, and that's only because of a few ongoing luxuries. Unless you live in Georgetown or some other expensive area, you can live comfortably enough in DC on an income of $50,000.00 a year. So if I were a senator or representative, my annual cost of living might average, between living in both places, about $85,000.00 a year plus recreation. If I had a wife and a child or two who still lived at home, maybe 25k or so a year more.

On $168,500.00, that would leave me, after taxes, a good $70,000.00 plus for enjoyment, not to mention my unspent campaign money and the perks that come with being a member of Congress. Hmmm... Members of Congress aren't superstars or gods, they're merely citizens like the rest of us whom we send to DC to represent us in the running of our government. The great majority of their constituents have to budget themselves to various degrees, in fact many have little or nothing left over after taking care of "the inescapable". Perhaps that's what our politicians should have to do as well. It might give them a better perspective of the living situations of those they "govern".

Further, in the private sector, most of us get paid what we're worth to our employer, not what our personal expenses dictate. We have to adjust our lifestyles to our incomes, not the other way around. If Senator Livingston Hamilton Shmoe, lll wants to live in a fifteen room house in an upscale neighborhood back in his home state and a $5,000.00 a month apartment in DC, that's not our lookout. We don't pay Senator Shmoe to live like a baron, we pay him to do a job that he and most of his colleagues aren't doing very well at the moment.

If they aren't happy with what they're being paid for the piss poor job they're doing, let the bums go back into the private sector and practice Law, or whatever they were doing before they became politicians. Congress was never intended to be a career field, anyway -- it was supposed to be a place to which one went for one or two terms, then returned to private life to reap what they'd sewn.

For much of Congress' history, pay raises were enacted late at night, without roll call votes. To free lawmakers from the political embarrassment of having to vote on their own pay raises, Congress made itself eligible for the same cost-of-living adjustments as other federal employees in 1989.

Lately, including last year, the pay hikes have gone into effect quietly. During the 1990s, though, members voted five times to forgo the automatic pay hike. Some members say now's the time to do so again, given the costs of the war in Iraq and Katrina relief. "Maybe Congress should tighten its own belt first," Matheson says. "It would be an important symbol."

Bravo!

Posted by from the blogosphere at 09:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Posted at WILLY NILLY:

PJStar.com - Journal Star News

Dori Meinert appears to be the only Journalist in the Copley group that feels the public should be clued in on Ray's DC antics.

The $2.5 million earmark for the Illinois Technology Transition Center in West Chicago helps develop new technologies that create jobs, including some in his hometown of Peoria, LaHood told his fellow lawmakers on the House floor.

Herion is to junkies as earmarks are to_____ ?
Answer: Ray Lahood.

The guy needs earmarks like regular folks need oxygen. Meinert gives a bit more in sight into some of Ray's beneficiaries.

A member of the House Appro-Committee, LaHood included $5 million for Firefly Energy in the House bill. Firefly Energy received $2.5 million in earmarks this current fiscal year. Caterpillar would receive $75.2 million, if the Senate doesn't make changes to the bill. The firm, based in Peoria, received $26 million in earmarks this year.

So Firefly is getting $5 million, not to mention taxpayer subsidized rent at ICC North, formerly Zeller, and Caterpillar sees their welfare roughly triple in size from $26 Million to $75 million. Maybe the Journal Star business writer should do a story on how many of Caterpillars employees at the Morton facility qualitfy for the public aid card from the state to cover medical expenses for their children.

To get it straight, Caterpillar record profits, big government handouts, all the while diminishing wages and benefits that makes some of their employees eligible for public aid. The world is in progress alright.

Ray Lahood, protecting the powerful, at the expense of the taxpayer.

...read complete post at WILLY NILLY

Posted by from the blogosphere at 08:52 AM | Permalink

Posted at Three Pound Universe:

Congressman John Murtha wants to be the leader of the Democratic party in Washington. Give me a break!

OpinionJournal

"In 1980, prosecutors named Mr. Murtha an 'unindicted co-conspirator' in the Abscam scandal. The FBI captured him on tape saying he wasn't interested in taking a $50,000 payment from agents posing as Arab sheiks 'at this point,' but he was open to further discussions. The House Ethics Committee cleared him, but E. Barrett Prettyman, the committee's special counsel for the Abscam probe, questioned the panel's competence, likening it to 'a misdemeanor court faced with a multiple murder.' Mr. Prettyman abruptly resigned his post the same afternoon the committee voted to clear Mr. Murtha. While Mr. Prettyman continues to refuse to discuss the case, he told Roll Call newspaper in 1990 that it would be 'a logical conclusion' that he resigned over the committee's exoneration of Mr. Murtha.
In direct contrast to Sen. McCain, whose experience in the 1990 Keating Five scandal turned him into a good-government reformer, Mr. Murtha's brush with infamy stirred in him a pit-bull conviction that members of Congress deserve more protection from ethics probes. In 1997 Mr. Murtha joined with Rep. Billy Tauzin, a Louisiana Republican, in blocking outside groups from filing complaints directly with the House Ethics Committee. He also unsuccessfully pushed for a law that would require the Justice Department to reimburse the legal bills of any member of Congress it investigated if it was shown the probe was not 'substantially justified'--a privilege no other American has. Small wonder that Gary Ruskin, director of the liberal Congressional Accountability Project, told Roll Call that 'when it comes to institutional policing of corruption in Congress, John Murtha is a one-man wrecking crew.'
Mr. Murtha has been front and center in the controversy over earmarks, the individual portions of pork members of Congress often secretly secure for their districts or favored constituents. A Harper's magazine study has concluded that "the most effective ally for the earmark-seeker is a lobbyist who is actually related, by blood or marriage, to a powerful member of an appropriations committee.
Rep. Murtha is the ranking Democratic member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee and for the past three years has been the House's top recipient of defense industry cash . Therefore, few in Washington are surprised that his lobbyist brother, Robert "Kit" Murtha, is an enormously successful "earmark specialist" for the Beltway firm KSA Consulting. In recent years, Kit Murtha has brought in a mother lode of earmarks for at least 16 defense manufacturers with business before the Appropriations Committee."


...read complete post at Three Pound Universe

Posted by from the blogosphere at 07:02 AM | Permalink

Posted at Hard Starboard:

I recall the 1996 election campaign fondly - not at the presidential level, of course, which was a death march - but in the contest for which party was going to have control of Congress.

The Democrats, spearheaded by a $40 million Big Labor smear campaign based upon the calculated twisting of a comment then-Speaker Newt Gingrich made about the Health Services Administration (a bureaucracy within the sprawling Medicare entitlement) that with the reforms he was envisioning the HSA would "wither on the vine" - were bound & determined to take Congress back after having unexpectedly (to them) lost both Houses two years earlier. And they were supremely overconfident that they would do so, too. As far as they were concerned, it was already in the bag. The press ran stories about Speaker Gephardt and Majority Leader Daschle and all the new Dem committee chairmen on both sides of the Capitol gleefully polishing up their gavels to wield after the poor, sad sack 'Pubbies went down in a landslide.

There was only one small problem with these best-laid plans: they never happened.

"Mediscare" peaked too soon. It reached high tide in the early summer of 1996 and then subsided. Bill Clinton was able to piggy-back it to victory by selling himself as a "check" on the GOP congressional majorities who would otherwise be "out of control" and proceed to "dirty the water and dirty the air" and "make old ladies eat Alpo" and "take food out of the mouths of children" and "force every American to thump Bibles and handle snakes" - and, of course, "gut" Medicare. But the premise of that gimmick was that the Republicans would remain in control, as they ultimately did.

I harken back to a decade ago because history looks to be repeating itself ten years later.

For the most part, the 109th Congress has been a bust. The GOP has had its moments here and there - confirming John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the SCOTUS, extending the Bush tax cuts for a few more years, renewing the Patriot Act, tort reform - but many have been its failures and mistakes, from the infamous "memo of understanding" to the failure to push through drilling in ANWR to rampaging domestic spending and the avalanche of "earmarks" that crammed last year's energy and highway bills with enough pork to make the oinking audible several parsecs away. By rights the Pachyderms have earned relegation back to minority status, and then some.

And they probably would be, but for the fact that the Democrats have done zippo, zilch, nada to take advantage of the generous opportunity their foes handed to them. It took them a year and a half to come up with even the pretense of an alternative agenda, and it turns out to be the same tired old liberalism, and not even gussied up in all that attractive a camouflage wrapping, either. They spent over a year obsessed with scandal-mongering against Tom DeLay, only to make a lateral move over to John Boehner as his Majority Leader replacement. They got rid of Randy "Duke" Cunningham only to see one of their own, "Icebox Willie" Jefferson, match his malfeasances. And as an added bonus they gave us Patrick Kennedy's DUI smashup and Cynthia McKinney's assault on the Capitol Police. Thanks to al Donka's efforts, the "culture of corruption" was shown to be, at worst, a decidedly bipartisan affair.

More debilitating than anything else has been the Democrats' compulsive inability to let go of their Vietnam syndrome as it infects their approach to the war against Islamic Fundamentalism. Every time over the past twenty months that they have gotten any kind of momentum, one of their number has taken the anti-war bait, handed the Republicans the opportunity to put the seditious idiocy of a Jack Murtha or a Russ Feingold to a vote, and gotten humiliated. And when elected Donks haven't been stepping on rakes, their friends in the Extreme Media and the hard-left "nutroots" have taken turns at it, from Cindy Sheehan's antics to the supposed "massive" protests that invariably fizzled to the active quasi-espionage of the New York Times and its Clintonoid intelligence sources.

But perhaps the most decisive factor in the gradual turning of this latest tide is the fact that Republicans appear to be figuring some things out. Most significant among them is the House GOP's resolute stance against "comprehensive" immigration "reform," which was the biggest threat to their majority status come November if it passed in the form favored by the White House and Senate. The death of that mortal electoral hazard for this session looks like the fulcrum, along with the recent, and undeniable, breakthroughs in Iraq, on which the GOP comeback is pivoting.

The latest and most comprehensive indication of this trend is the latest Battleground Poll of Senate races, which shows Republicans retaining a minimum of fifty-two seats. Here's how they break down the competitive races, with my read correctively inserted where necessary:

ARIZONA: Leaning GOP incumbent John Kyl (Kyl will win in a walk).

FLORIDA: Solid Dem incumbent Bill Nelson (Nelson should have been an easy pick-off, but…oh, hell, let's not go there…)

MARYLAND: Open seat of retiring Dem Paul Sarbanes; solid lead for Dem Congressman Ben Cardin (I still think GOP Lieutenant-Governor Michael Steele is going to pull this race out, though it will may take another of those electoral tsunamis to make it happen)

MICHIGAN: Leaning Dem incumbent Debbie Stabenow (If Governor Jennifer Granholm goes down in the gubernatorial race, the undertow might take Stabenow - who barely won in 2000 - with her)

MINNESOTA: Open seat of retiring Dem Mark Dayton; toss-up between GOP Congressman Mark Kennedy and some forgettable lib broad who, let's face it, won't stand much of a chance against the Senate's next Kennedy.

MISSOURI: Leaning GOP incumbent Jim Talent (It'll be close, but Talent hasn't provided voters with a reason to get rid of him, so he should get by)

NEVADA: Solid GOP incumbent John Ensign (To think that Ensign came within fewer than a thousand votes of Dirty Harry in 1998….)

NEW JERSEY: Seat vacated by disastrous Jersey guv Jon Korzine, who is running out of elective offices to buy; toss-up between space-taker-upper and former Dem Congressman Bob Menendez and Garden State favorite son Tom Keane (Ordinarily I'd pick the Dem by default, but Keane's parentage should be enough to overcome the hapless appointee)

NEW MEXICO: Solid Dem incumbent Jeff Bingaman

NEW YORK: Solid Dem incumbent and president-in-waiting Hillary Rodham Jack Bauer George Patton Bullbricker Clinton (Only suspenseful question left: Can she win by triple digits?)

OHIO: Solid Dem challenger Sherrod Brown (GOP incumbent Mike DeWine is in trouble, and frankly, richly deserves to be)

PENNSYLVANIA: Leaning Dem challenger Bob Casey (GOP incumbent Rick Santorum has been in trouble ever since Casey announced, and frankly DOESN'T deserve to be; could still pull it out, but probably needs the same "tide lifting all boats" help that Michael Steele does)

TENNESSEE: Open seat of retiring Majority Leader Bill Frist; Battleground calls it a tossup, but I've seen nothing to persuade me that this seat won't stay "red".

TEXAS: Solid GOP incumbent Kay Bailey Hutchinson

VIRGINIA: Leaning GOP incumbent George Allen (Allen will win easily - just look at his opponent)

WASHINGTON: Leaning Dem incumbent Maria Cantwell (I'll admit I'm surprised that GOP challenger Mike McGavick is making as strong a run as he is; this should be a blowout for Cantwell at least to the magnitude of the Patty Murray-George Nethercutt race in '04 [53-44]. If this race were taking place two years ago with George Bush and Dino Rossi further up the ticket, I might give McGavick a chance for the upset; hell, if Rossi had challenged Cantwell this would have been a pre-emptive GOP pickup. As it is, I just can't see it - at least not yet)

WISCONSIN: Leaning Dem incumbent Herb Kohl (If former GOP governor Tommy Thompson were challenging Kohl, it'd be like the aforementioned Rossi-Cantwell showdown that never was; but this one doesn't look like it's materializing either).

So, as I read things, it comes out a wash - the Democrats pick off Santorum and DeWine, the Republicans off-set by pocketing the Minnesota and New Jersey seats. If things break heavily the GOP's way, as the wily Michael Novak believes, perhaps Santorum and DeWine hang on and the 'Pubbies bag Stabenow and the Sarbanes seat as well to get to fifty-nine seats. But as I wrote the other day, just holding serve after the crapola cascade of the past year and a half will be a moral victory for the Republicans, and a catastrophe for al Donka.

Or, to let Novak have the last word:

The Left is going to lose — big — because they have nothing noble, nothing beautiful, nothing real, nothing true, with which to lead. They are the merchants of illusion. And a significant majority of Americans, although not all, see through them.

In a democratic election, however, it only takes a small majority to win. And the upcoming election of 2006 is not likely to be all that close.

The Democrats piqued too soon.

I believe I said that.

UPDATE: And so is the Washington Prowler:

Democrat National Committee chairman Howard Dean is seeing polling numbers that are making him a nervous man. Recent internal polling data for Senate races from Washington state, Minnesota, Michigan, Missouri, and Maryland - with the
exception of Missouri, which is a GOP defense - shows Democrat support cratering
if not crumbling around the edges. [emphases added]
Gee, was it something I said….?

...read complete post at Hard Starboard

Posted by from the blogosphere at 02:58 AM | Permalink

Posted at Connecticut Local Politics:

On a rainy Saturday Dan Malloy came to middle of main street in Middletown to chat with some of the political junkies that blog for this site and MyLeftNutmeg at Java Palooza, one of the coffee houses that tap into the free municipal WIFI. Fresh from an earlier “Meet the Mayor” meeting in Stamford, Malloy greeted the small group to talk about his campaign, Connecticut and of course the issues.

In the past six years, Main Street in Middletown has changed from empty store-fronts to a more pedestrian inviting look of small businesses like Java Palooza. It’s the kind of small scale growth that has been a small bright spot for the Connecticut economy recently. In this setting it seemed natural that chatting with Malloy would turn to themes of the Connecticut economy.

“I think Connecticut has some surprising opportunities” said Malloy. “We have the capacity to compete in more areas than people think.”

To Malloy, Connecticut is a land of opportunity, but he admits that he worries more about what happens if Connecticut doesn’t change course.

Connecticut Not Competeting

“Connecticut,” he says softly, “is currently headed in the wrong direction.”

It’s clear that the despite the soft spoken tone, Malloy believes deeply that Connecticut is suffering from years of poor management.

New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts are much more competitive than they were in the past, he explained. New Jersey for example made large investments in their transportation infrastructure and now reap the expansion fueled by rail, water and road investments by the state.

“For the past 20 years, New Jersey has made an investment in transportation, Malloy added, “it’s a sin that Connecticut hasn’t.”

New Jersey’s model isn’t without problems. Legislators in New Jersey are currently grappling with issues concerning over development, cost over runs, and budget shortfalls. But the overall result is hard to argue with. According to James W. Hughes, Dean of the School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers “Every period of economic progression in New Jersey was built upon earlier advances in transportation infrastructure investment. These were increments of new transportation capacity that preceded and facilitated subsequent economic growth.”

Connecticut by most measures has not fared as well. A FDIC report from 2005 said Connecticut lagged near the bottom in job creation. Even our farms are closing and moving to Pennsylvania, Malloy pointed out, referring to the recent announcement that Franklin Farms, a grower or organic mushrooms and vegetables is leaving Connecticut.

To Malloy, the list of reasons for the dire outlook of Connecticut’s future is long. “There is no transportation policy. There is no energy policy. There is no job retention, no job growth policy. There's certainly no housing policy.”

Better Government That Costs Less

Malloy points to his record as Mayor of Stamford, not only as a good fiscal model, but also as a model for good governance that communicates better, cuts costs and offers better service.

“This is a good story, a true story,” he begins “In 1995 I went down to Washington D.C. I was trying to get federal funds to improve my city, Stamford. We wanted to add parking, improve the rail stations.”

“They asked me, why doesn’t Connecticut ask for more Federal funds? I couldn’t answer that.” The next year he added a request for 8 rail cars so he wouldn’t be asked the question again. Malloy’s ability to identify problems and work diligently towards solutions is evident in reviewing his record. In 1999, Stamford received $992,500 in federally earmarked funs to start the Stamford Urban Transitway. By 2006, the federal earmarks for Stamford totaled $33,553,00 and the list of projects ranged from high speed ferry terminals, bridges, walking trails and the continued worked on roads and rail improvements.

But federal and state funds aren’t the only places Malloy has looked for ways to fund initiatives. Malloy doesn’t fit the tar brushed mold of what Republicans want people to believe. “We've got to combat this basic rubric of analysis that most citizens engage in, that Democrats are bad for the economy and bad for fiscal management, and that Republicans are good for the economy and good for fiscal management. Now, the reverse happens to be true, but someone's got to be saying this on an ongoing basis, and in my case at least proving it."

Mayors like to tout their city’s bond ratings, in Stamford’s case, still AAA, and then turn to the positives of the yearly budgets. Malloy is no different, he takes pride in his accomplishments, acknowledging that 4 of the past 6 years Stamford has had a budget surplus, but adding with conviction that its 8 surpluses out of nine year's worth of budgets under his watch.

The Future Vision

With the new parking garages and rail station improvements, Malloy turned to the businesses in Stamford to help shoulder part of the investment in making Stamford a better, more attractive place. The result was the downtown special services district contributes money towards the beautification and promotion of downtown Stamford.

“Government should be more proactive on how towns manage their money and their services.” Malloy points out, “Stamford shrunk the size of government but increased services.”

When looking at Connecticut’s rail system, Malloy tackled the outdated thinking that accepts the 100 year old system of fixed passenger schedules. Part of the solution, he says, is to think of it as a subway system with more frequent trains, shorter trains that operate with greater flexibility.

Partnership with business and entrepreneurial approaches do work he explained. “If we wrestled with competition, if government is a partner, there’s a brighter future for Connecticut even in niche manufacturing.”

Yet towns across Connecticut are busy turning industrial zones into residential housing. Malloy is concerned about that, pointing out that he fought to keep a manufacturer in Stamford despite the hard reality that doing business is Connecticut is expensive and often not competitive with other states. He identifies energy costs as one of the many factors that impact business operations using Michigan as an example of a state that offers energy costs about one sixth of what it costs in Connecticut.

Accountability Is Important

Despite Malloy’s enthusiasm for tackling the problems through policy, he came back to a recurring theme. “No one goes back five years later to review policy decisions,” he began, “we do in Stamford.” Malloy, it turns out, is deeply concerned with unintended consequences. It’s not enough for him to craft policy and let others execute it without accountability. That touchstone of accountability is one that resonates broadly, especially for Malloy, a former prosecutor. His view on Jodi Rell’s leadership starkly exhibits his passion for accountability. “She's shocked, she's saddened, she's disappointed in the corruption of people who are working for her.' I mean, we can use the terms, we all know them. This is totally reactive government.”

Malloy is clearly frustrated by the missed opportunities and failures to address Connecticut’s future. He’s hoping for that dynamic to change in November. But he first has to tackle the difficult task of winning the August 8th Democratic primary to get there. He’s itching for a debate with Jodi Rell, “I can’t wait to have a real debate with Jodi Rell,” he says confidently. But when pressed about the campaign for the primary, he admitted his frustrations with the Senate race dominating coverage, and the generally less engaged voter. After the first week of July he promised it’ll be a sprint to the finish. Looking at how he’s tackled each and every task thus far, you can be sure that’s he got a plan to win the race.

...read complete post at Connecticut Local Politics

Posted by from the blogosphere at 04:06 PM | Permalink

Posted at Good Year For The Outlaw:

Whoops.

Porky Hastert not only brings home the bacon to Illinois, but he goes beyond that and fills his bank vault in the process.
Sickening.


...read complete post at Good Year For The Outlaw

Posted by from the blogosphere at 02:10 PM | Permalink

Glenn Reynolds

...read complete post at Instapundit.com

Posted by at 10:51 AM | Permalink

Posted at The Left Coaster:

Well, well, well. Rep Jerry Lewis' other revolving door assistant, Letitia White, also had her bonus pay tied directly to the profitability of the earmarks obtained from Lewis' committee. If you recall, Jeff Shockey made almost $2 million in severance...

...read complete post at The Left Coaster

Posted by from the blogosphere at 01:36 PM | Permalink

Posted at Republican National Convention Blog NYC 2004:

Technorati Tags: President Bush and White House or European allies and Austria or Hungary and European Union or line-item veto and House of Representatives or Senate and PODCAST or taxpayersbush radio address 06/24/06 full audio, text transcript. PODCAST and In Focus: Jobs & Economy

President's Radio Address Subscribe to Our Odeo or podnova Podcast Channel and receive the weekly Presidential Radio Address in English and Spanish with select State Department Briefings. Featuring real audio and full text transcripts, More content Sources added often so stay tuned.

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. This past week I traveled to Austria and Hungary, where I had productive meetings with our European allies. We discussed the challenges and opportunities we share, including the importance of spreading prosperity at home and around the world. It's good to be back home, and I'm pleased to report that our economy is strong, growing, and delivering prosperity to more of our people.

Let me give you a few facts. In the first quarter of 2006, our economy grew at an impressive annual rate of 5.3 percent. Since August of 2003, America has created more than 5.3 million new jobs, more than all 25 nations of the European Union combined. Productivity is growing, and wages are beginning to rise. And because taxes are low, workers are keeping more of the money they earn.

Our economy is heading into the summer on the fast track, and one of the best ways to keep our momentum going is to restrain spending in Washington, D.C. Earlier this month, Congress took an important step by passing an emergency spending bill that stayed within the strict spending limits I set. The bill included necessary funding for high priorities, such as equipping our military and rebuilding the Gulf Coast, and it showed discipline in other areas. Congress deserves credit for meeting my spending limits, and I was pleased to sign the emergency spending bill into law.

As Members of Congress show restraint on spending bills, they also need to make reforms in the spending process. Under the current system, many lawmakers are able to insert funding for pet projects into large spending bills. This process is called earmarking, and it often results in unnecessary spending. For example, a bill to fund our military can be loaded up with unjustified earmarks and other spending that may not add to our national security.

This leaves Members of Congress with two bad options -- they can either vote against the whole bill, including all the worthwhile spending, or they have to accept the whole bill, including the wasteful spending. The President is left with the same dilemma -- either he has to veto the entire bill or sign the bill and approve the unnecessary spending.

There's a smarter way to handle taxpayer dollars, and it begins with granting the President a tool called the line-item veto. A line-item veto would allow the President to remove wasteful spending from a bill while preserving the rest of the legislation. Forty-three of our Nation's 50 governors have line-item veto authority, and they have used that authority to remove needless spending from otherwise good bills.

Ten years ago, Members of Congress from both parties voted to grant President Clinton the line-item veto. However, the Supreme Court ruled that version of the line-item veto unconstitutional because it took too much spending authority away from the Congress. I proposed a new version of the line-item veto that fixes the problem and gives the President a clear and constitutional way to cut wasteful spending. Under my proposal, the President would identify a list of unnecessary items that should be removed from a larger spending bill. Congress would then be required to hold a prompt up-or-down vote on the list.

A line-item veto would give the President a way to insist on greater discipline in the budget. A line-item veto would reduce the incentive for Congress to spend wastefully because when lawmakers know their pet projects will be held up to public scrutiny, they will be less likely to suggest them in the first place. Most importantly, a line-item veto would benefit American taxpayers by ensuring greater respect for their hard-earned dollars.

This past Thursday, the House of Representatives passed a bill granting line-item-veto authority. This was a victory for the taxpayers and for spending restraint. I call on the Senate to show a bipartisan commitment to fiscal discipline by passing the line-item veto so we can work together to cut wasteful spending, reduce the deficit, and save money for American taxpayers.

Thank you for listening.

END For Immediate Release, Office of the Press Secretary, June 24, 2006

Related: Keywords radio address, podcast, Saturday, June 17, 2006 bush radio address 06/17/06 full audio, text transcript, Saturday, June 10, 2006 bush radio address 06/10/06 full audio, text transcript, Monday, June 05, 2006 bush radio address 06/03/06 full audio, text transcript, Wednesday, May 31, 2006 bush radio address 05/27/06 full audio, text transcript, Saturday, May 20, 2006 bush radio address 05/20/06 full audio, text transcript, Saturday, May 13, 2006 bush radio address 05/13/06 full audio, text transcript, Saturday, May 06, 2006 bush radio address 05/06/06 full audio, text transcript, Saturday, April 29, 2006 bush radio address 04/29/06 full audio, text transcript, Saturday, April 22, 2006 bush radio address 04/22/06 full audio, text transcript, Saturday, April 15, 2006 bush radio address 04/15/06 full audio, text transcript, Saturday, April 08, 2006 bush radio address 04/08/06 full audio, text transcript, Saturday, April 01, 2006 bush radio address 04/01/06 full audio, text transcript, Saturday, March 25, 2006 bush radio address 03/25/06 full audio, text transcript, Saturday, March 18, 2006 bush radio address 03/18/06 full audio, text transcript, Saturday, March 11, 2006 bush radio address 03/11/06 full audio, text transcript,

...read complete post at Republican National Convention Blog NYC 2004

Posted by from the blogosphere at 10:44 AM | Permalink

Posted at Don Singleton:

Yahoo! News reported President Bush would receive greater power to try to kill "pork barrel" spending projects under a bill passed Thursday by the House. Lawmakers voted to give Bush and his successor a weaker version of the line-item veto law struck down by the Supreme Court in 1998,

I would much prefer a constitution ammendment giving the President the same power that most Governors have, but this is better than nothing.

despite a recent series of lopsided votes in which they've rallied to preserve each other's back-home projects. The new power would expire after six years. The idea advances amid increasing public concern about lawmakers' penchant for stuffing parochial projects into spending bills that the president must accept or reject in their entirety. The House passed the bill by a 247-172 vote. Thirty-five Democrats joined with most Republicans in voting for the bill; 15 Republicans opposed the measure and others voted for the bill despite private reservations. The measure must still pass the Senate, and that's by no means a certainty. The bill would allow the president to single out items contained in appropriations bills he signs into law, and it would require Congress to vote on those items again. It also could be used against increases in benefit programs and tax breaks aimed at a single beneficiary. Under the proposal, it would take a simple majority in both the House and the Senate to approve the items over the president's objections. The hope is that wasteful spending or special interest tax breaks would be vulnerable since Congress might vote to reject such items once they are no longer protected by their inclusion in bigger bills that the president has little choice but to sign. "The line item veto is a critical tool that will help rein in wasteful spending and bring greater transparency to the budget process," Bush said in a statement after the vote. Supporters said lawmakers would think twice before slipping poorly conceived projects into spending bills. "The success of this bill will be less in the amount of pork that we line-item veto out and more in how much pork never gets put into the legislation in the first place," said the bill's sponsor, Rep. Paul Ryan (news, bio, voting record), R-Wis. The bill is a far weaker version of the line-item veto that Republicans in Congress gave President Clinton in 1996. That bill allowed Clinton to strike items from appropriations and tax bills unless Congress mustered a two-thirds margin to override him.

We need a constitutional ammendment for that.

The Supreme Court declared the law unconstitutional two years later because it let the president change laws passed by Congress.

Captain Ed blogged It goes next to the Senate, where significant opposition exists. The idea of giving the executive branch the power to deny specific funding rankles those who already view this administration as a problem in terms of power-sharing. However, the Senate itself has shown almost no discipline in reforming its own appropriations processes, porking up one bill after another shamelessly. It took a conference committee to strip out $15.5 billion of pork added to an emergency spending measure intended to fund our deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as provide more assistance to Hurricane Katrina victims.
Supporters need to keep the pressure on their Senators to vote for the new line-item veto. We need to make clear that those who hold out for a broken and corrupt system of appropriations will not long be trusted to handle the taxpayers' money.

Pork Busters blogged Republicans, particularly on the House side, appear to be waking up in time and distancing themselves from the electoral implosion toward which their spendthriftedness and immigration policy tin-ear had had them drifting. Combined with the Democrats' latest self-immolations on the war, those GOP majorities are looking safer all the time.

Mark Noonan blogged A line item veto is a good thing, but I'm not sure this is the way to go about it - what seems to be happening here is an attempt at a soft line-item veto which will somehow skirt 'round the Supreme Court's rejection of same back in the Clinton Administration. I don't see how this will work - much better to just pass the real thing, and then add a provision excluding the operation of the line item from Federal judicial scruitiny (as provided for in the Constituiton which states that the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction as regulated by the Congress).

...read complete post at Don Singleton

Posted by from the blogosphere at 10:23 AM | Permalink

Posted at Wabi-Sabi:

The Republican candidate for US Senate, John Raese, has started his campaign for the general election by airing an attack ad accusing Senator Robert Byrd of voting against the troops.

Despite promising to run a positive campaign, he has started sling mud already. The ad is a misleading, dishonest attack that repeats the same false attack that the National Republican Senatorial Committee ran last summer, and during the 2004 Presidential Campaign.

No one should be surprised that Raese has already started twisting the truth since his lead campaign consultant is Keith Appel, the PR guy who produced the Swift Boat smear campaign against John Kerry.

As I mentioned last summer when the original ad ran, this attack is blatantly dishonest and obviously from the same playbook that the Republicans have been using over and over again.

The ad claims that Senator Byrd voted against the troops, because he voted against a nation building bill for Iraq that was full of questionable spending.

It's a ludicrous and misleading claim, because Senator Byrd proposed an amendment to the bill (link) that would have provided INCREASED funding for the troops. The Republican-majority Congress voted down his amendment.

John Raese keeps complaining about Senator Byrd bringing federal projects and so called "pork barrel" funding and "earmarks" to West Virginia, but President Bush and the Republican-led Congress apparently prefer that taxpayers pay for pork barrel projects in Baghdad.

Senator Byrd wants to put the money where it would do the most good in protecting soldiers. He even proposed an amendment that would have increased the amount of money going to body armor and securing conventional weapons, which are responsible for most all of the deaths of US soldiers. Unfortunately, Republican Senators defeated the amendment resulting in LESS money for body armor.

Senator Byrd wanted to spend more on the things soldiers need and less on things like:$2 million on 40 garbage trucks, at $50,000 each?$20 million for a 4-week business course at $10,000 per student?$900 million to import petroleum products, for a country with the the second largest oil reserves in the world? As Senator Byrd noted in his remarks on the amendment, "According to the Congressional Research Service, if we purchased those petroleum products at market prices, it would cost $704 million. I wonder who is profiting from this sweetheart deal at the U.S. taxpayers’ expense."Senator Byrd wanted more money for protecting our troops, not less. His amendment even mirrored the Republican-controlled House Appropriations committee which found $1.65 billion in questionable and unnecessary expenditures.

As the Senator noted, "The President’s budget request includes only $300 million in a catchall account that lumps munitions security in with critically needed bulletproof vests and the rapid fielding of technological advances. This is the same budget request that includes $697 million for sewage improvements in Iraq, $150 million for the aforementioned garbage trucks and landfill sites, $200 million for an America-Iraqi Enterprise Fund, and $110 million for something called Market Oriented Specialized Training."Senator Byrd proposed $600 million more to secure and destroy conventional weapons in Iraq, which would have tripled the amount that the President proposed, yet John Raese has the gall to claim he voted against body armor and voted against our troops?

He wanted to support our troops and protect them from the ammunition that was killing them. The President and John Raese apparently wanted to buy garbage trucks and import oil to Iraq. Apparently, garbage trucks are more important to John Raese than body armor.

Stating that Senator Byrd voted against funding when he proposed an amendment to increase that funding is misleading, dishonest and offensive, yet it's typical of the attacks on which Keith Appel and his colleagues have built their careers.

It's unfortunate that the first ad after winning the Republican primary from the Raese campaign is not in support of something. It's entirely an attack. So much for a positive, issue-based campaign that John Raese promised in May.

The good news is that Senator Byrd is responding quickly to refute the dishonest attack. He has already released an ad that affirms his record of support for our military both in Iraq and after they return home. You can listen to Senator Byrd's ad here.

Coming soon... I was recently the victim of a push poll call from the Raese Campaign. Stay tuned.

...read complete post at Wabi-Sabi

Posted by from the blogosphere at 12:38 AM | Permalink

Posted at Garbanzo Toons:


I don't have the patience to listen to talk radio at home. But in the car, if there's no good music on (most of the time) I can flip through the stations during commercials or when the host is stretching, making a short story long in order to fill time. So I can listen to three talk radio stations at once and easily keep track of all of the arguements. They all stretch, everyone on both sides of the political dial, kind of like what I'm doing now. As I fill space, they fill time. But eventually, they get to the point of their story, as I am about to do.
As I was driving, Michael Savage read this editorial from the Washington Times. It's about Representative "Redeployment" himself, Jack "Cut and Run" Murtha. Last June, the Los Angeles Times reported how the ranking member on the defense appropriations subcommittee has a brother, Robert Murtha, whose lobbying firm represents 10 companies that received more than $20 million from last year's defense spending bill. "Clients of the lobbying firm KSA Consulting -- whose top officials also include former congressional aide Carmen V. Scialabba, who worked for Rep. Murtha as a congressional aide for 27 years -- received a total of $20.8 million from the bill," the L.A. Times reported. In early 2004, according to Roll Call, Mr. Murtha "reportedly leaned on U.S. Navy officials to sign a contract to transfer the Hunters Point Shipyard to the city of San Francisco." Laurence Pelosi, nephew of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, at the time was an executive of the company which owned the rights to the land. The same article also reported how Mr. Murtha has been behind millions of dollars worth of earmarks in defense appropriations bills that went to companies owned by the children of fellow Pennsylvania Democrat, Rep. Paul Kanjorski. Meanwhile, the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan campaign-finance watchdog group, lists Mr. Murtha as the top recipient of defense industry dollars in the current 2006 election cycle. Please notice that the name Pelosi also figures into this story. And of course, there is more.
It's probably time for an investigation into this culture of corruption. After all, everyone claims to be against corruption.


...read complete post at Garbanzo Toons

Posted by from the blogosphere at 11:37 PM | Permalink

Posted at Liberty and Justice:

TPMmuckraker reports:

Bloomberg News got ahold of the donor list for Rep. Alan Mollohan's (D-WV) charity, and what do you know -- it's stocked full of contributions from companies that have benefited from Mollohan's widely-renowned earmarking abilities.
[...]
According to Bloomberg, over the past six years Mollohan, who's under investigation by the U.S. Attorney's Office in D.C., has earmarked $179 million for companies and nonprofits that gave to his charity. All that went to "21 companies and nonprofit groups that contributed $225,427 to the Robert H. Mollohan Family Charitable Foundation in 2004 -- almost half of the charity's revenue." Nine of the top 10 contributors to Mollohan's reelection campaign in 2004 also gave to the charity.

And there we have the reason (well one of them) why politicians are the worst people in the world to decide what's morally wrong and what's morally right. For instance, were I in his position I'd find it highly questionable to earmark $179 million for companies that were responsible for contributing so to my charity that they'd cover almost half of my charity's revenue. Of course I am not a politician, thus my views on matters like these are completely different: one could argue that there is still some morality in them.

Also see Nanman at The Influence Peddler.

...read complete post at Liberty and Justice

Posted by from the blogosphere at 07:58 PM | Permalink

Posted at Hard Starboard:

There is at least one Republican on Capitol Hill who both recognizes that Congress is spending like Linda Blair hurled ectoplasm when she was possessed by the devil and has bellied up to the bar with legislation that can actually slow down the billions-spewing:

How fortunate, then, that Senate Budget Committee chairman Judd Gregg is giving his party a chance to redeem itself before the midterm elections. Recognizing that much of what’s wrong with the way Washington spends money is a product of the budget process itself, Gregg has proposed a series of reforms to that process. His legislation—the Stop Over-Spending (S.O.S.) Act—is one of the most encouraging efforts toward spending discipline in years, and is eminently worthy of passage.

Congress has been especially profligate on the matter of discretionary spending. Spending caps in effect from 1990 to 2002 largely held discretionary spending in check, but since then it has grown by 9% a year. The S.O.S. Act would bring back the caps, starting at $873 billion in fiscal year 2007 and rising by 2.6% in 2008 and 2009. If discretionary spending passed these limits, the Office of Management and Budget would be empowered to bring it under control by making across-the-board cuts.

But it is entitlements that pose the greatest fiscal threat....Perhaps the most valuable provisions of the S.O.S. Act, then, are those that address entitlement spending. One such provision would set deficit targets and require budget committees to reduce entitlement spending if the deficit is expected to exceed them. (The targets start out at 2.75% of GDP in 2007 and decline to 0.5% by 2012.) If the committees fail to make cuts, automatic reductions in entitlement spending (with the exception of Social Security) would take effect....It also contains a provision targeting runaway Medicare costs: If more than 45% of those costs were covered by general revenue (as opposed to payroll taxes and fees), a point of order against entitlement expansions would take effect until that figure dropped back below 45%....

Other main provisions include giving the president a line-item veto that would allow him to send rescission requests to Congress for an up-or-down vote, and introducing a biennial budget process. Moving away from the present, annual process would free Congress to spend more time on oversight and reform of federal programs.

Sounds like the old Gramm-Rudman-Hollings provision from the mid-late 1980s that was so effective in slowing federal spending and, in combo with the Reagan tax cuts, had the budget gliding toward balance until the Dems suckered Pappy Bush into raising taxes during a recession and exploded the deficit again. Ah, memories.

The line item veto is also a pleasant memory, if only in concept since it was wasted on Bill Clinton. But that provision has been revived, albeit in weaker form (via CQ):

Lawmakers voted to give Bush and his successor a new, weaker version of the line-item veto law struck down by the Supreme Court in 1998, despite a recent series of lopsided votes in which they've rallied to preserve each other's back-home projects. It would expire after six years.

The idea advances amid increasing public concern about lawmakers' penchant for stuffing parochial projects into spending bills that the president must accept or reject in their entirety. ...

The bill would allow the president to single out items contained in appropriations bills he signs into law, and it would require Congress to vote on those items again. It also could be used against increases in benefit programs and tax breaks aimed at a single beneficiary.

Under the proposal, it would take a simple majority in both the House and the Senate to approve the items over the president's objections.

The hope is that wasteful spending or special interest tax breaks would be vulnerable since Congress might vote to reject such items once they are no longer protected by their inclusion in bigger bills that the president has little choice but to sign.

This sounds like an election year gimmick, in all honesty. Like all fiscally sane policy in this decade, the damn thing is sunsetted. I doubt we'll ever see the same feature applied to any spending program. And what's the point of even calling it a "veto" when a supermajority isn't required for Congress to override it? Couldn't 'Pubbies have even gotten a 60% threshold if Dems and RINOs wouldn't stand for the standard two-thirds? After watching the bipartisan brazenness of the appropriations process the past few years, count me as skeptical that pork-barrel spending and earmarks would be as "vulnerable" as this LIV's architects are trying to sell.

Still, one can think of this as getting the camel's nose of frugality back inside the bread & circuses tent. For six years, or until the Democrats regain the majority, whichever comes first. And that's if the bill can get through the Senate, which is like [insert favorite lobbyists-are-like-whores joke here].

Speaking of the Senate getting hosed, House Speaker Denny Hastert has done one thing to redeem himself this week: drive a spike through the heart of "comprehensive" immigration "reform," followed by feeding the remains through a woodchipper, incinerating the fragments, burying them, paving over the grave, and jumping up and down on it for good measure (via CQ):

In a defeat for President Bush, Republican congressional leaders said Tuesday that broad immigration legislation is all but doomed for the year, a victim of election-year concerns in the House and conservatives' implacable opposition to citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants.

"Our number one priority is to secure the border, and right now I haven't heard a lot of pressure to have a path to citizenship," said Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-IL, announcing plans for an unusual series of hearings to begin in August on Senate-passed immigration legislation. ...

Gotta love the Speaker's droll manner - "I haven't heard a lot of pressure to have a path to citzenship" - which translates to, "If you pass another amnesty, we'll drive a stake through your hearts, feed the remains through a wood chipper, then..." well, you get the idea.

I also can't help but chuckle at the reactions from the various wings of the border erasure crowd. Like the ASSociated Press: "Conservatives' implacable opposition to citizenship for illegals." "Implacable" is defined as, "impossible to placate or appease." Which doesn't make the term particularly applicable here since the White House and Senate have made little or no attempt to "placate or appease" the enforcement-first concerns of the House (and two-thirds of the American citizenry). But leaving that aside, the implication of the term the way the AP uses it is that House Republicans' opposition to a "comprehensive" bill is somehow unreasonable, and from there flows naturally to "callous" and "uncaring," and finally to "xenophobic" and "bigoted." We get nothing in the AP story about the amnesty proponents being "implacable" in their opposition to at least postponing the determination of what to do with the illegals already here until after the border is first secured. The structure of the graf is that there is a Rose Garden signing ceremony/photo-op to be had, full of fluttering (Mexican?) flags and salsa-eating grins and handshakes and back-slaps and token immigrants and all other manner of cynical self-congratulation, and the only ones standing in the way are those "implacable" conservatives in the House.

Next there is the White House, which, on this issue, remains as, well, "implacably" clueless as ever:

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said after Hastert's announcement of hearings, "The President is undeterred. We are committed and we have been working very hard with members (of Congress) to see if we can reach consensus on an issue the American people have said they want action on."
The "action" the American people want is to actually start (and keep) enforcing the immigration laws already on the books. The "action" the American people want is to start (and keep) controlling the borders and choke off the passive Mexican invasion of the United States. The "action" the American people want is for their elected leaders to stop letting foreigners who haven't gone through the legal immigration process come here, stay, and freeload off our social safety hammock, stop looking upon illegals as the next political constituency (for which Republicans could never really compete in any case - "poor, huddled masses" don't generally gravitate toward the party of personal responsibility, fiscal restraint, and law & order - not after the Dems get hold of them, anyway), and stop allowing the meaning of citizenship to be eroded. And the "action" the American people want is for this President to grasp that "demographics" is not the doodles Harry Reid draws on his legal pad during Senate floor debates, but the very future of America as we have known it for the past 230 years.

Senate GOPers, by contrast, seem to recognize the handwriting on the wall:

In the Senate, Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-TN, told reporters he welcomed hearings. "As much examination of the House bill and Senate bill as possible is good," he said.

Senator John McCain, R-Sith, a principal author of the Senate-passed measure, offered to testify at House hearings. Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said, "I'm hopeful" of a compromise before the elections.

I wouldn't mind seeing Darth Queeg cross the Capitol to testify. I'd love to see if putting him in close proximity to Tom Tancredo would make the hearing room spontaneously combust.

The moral of these two stories? Republicans, particularly on the House side, appear to be waking up in time and distancing themselves from the electoral implosion toward which their spendthriftedness and immigration policy tin-ear had had them drifting. Combined with the Democrats' latest self-immolations on the war, those GOP majorities are looking safer all the time.

...read complete post at Hard Starboard

Posted by from the blogosphere at 07:47 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (1)

Glenn Reynolds

...read complete post at Instapundit.com

Posted by at 07:30 PM | Permalink

Posted at Gunz Blog:


Washington TimesPublished June 21, 2006

The real Jack Murtha

Rep. John Murtha is thinking big thoughts. Since coming out for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq last year, he has accused Marines of murder "in cold blood" before a preliminary investigation is even complete; accused the military of a cover up over the same incident; declared his candidacy for the House majority leadership post; and, most recently, refined his cut-and-run strategy in Iraq to mean "redeployment" to Okinawa, Japan.

That's quite a splash for such a veteran congressman, who a year ago had zero name recognition outside Washington. That he's made a name for himself now by slandering our troops and their mission deserves a brief recital of some other activities associated with Mr. Murtha.
Last June, the Los Angeles Times reported how the ranking member on the defense appropriations subcommittee has a brother, Robert Murtha, whose lobbying firm represents 10 companies that received more than $20 million from last year's defense spending bill. "Clients of the lobbying firm KSA Consulting -- whose top officials also include former congressional aide Carmen V. Scialabba, who worked for Rep. Murtha as a congressional aide for 27 years -- received a total of $20.8 million from the bill," the L.A. Times reported.
In early 2004, according to Roll Call, Mr. Murtha "reportedly leaned on U.S. Navy officials to sign a contract to transfer the Hunters Point Shipyard to the city of San Francisco." Laurence Pelosi, nephew of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, at the time was an executive of the company which owned the rights to the land. The same article also reported how Mr. Murtha has been behind millions of dollars worth of earmarks in defense appropriations bills that went to companies owned by the children of fellow Pennsylvania Democrat, Rep. Paul Kanjorski. Meanwhile, the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan campaign-finance watchdog group, lists Mr. Murtha as the top recipient of defense industry dollars in the current 2006 election cycle.
As Rep. Joe Wilson, South Carolina Republican, has said, "If there is a potential pattern where Congressman Murtha has helped other Democrats secure appropriations that also benefited relatives of those members, I believe this would be something that merits further review by the ethics committee."
It's odd that the media, which has been fairly unbiased in going after corrupt politicians recently, has gone silent on Mr. Murtha's questionable actions. Or maybe it isn't. Since December, Mr. Murtha has become the darling of the antiwar crowd, and, as we've seen with other such darlings, scrutinizing their behavior is considered disrespectful. But as we're on the subject, few might recall that after the massive 1980 Abscam scandal, Mr. Murtha was named by the FBI as an "unindicted co-conspirator."
Maybe the next time the new Jack Murtha thinks up another big idea someone can ask him about the old Jack Murtha
.

GUNZ- I don't have anything else really to add to this...The article and especially the pic speaks volume and most importantly... FACTS!

One very sad and crooked old man is all I know. To trade in your honor/loyalty as a Marine for bad politics is very bewildering and extremely irresponsible. What ever price he pays in the future for his back stabbing actions will be truly justified, but never fully satisfying. He not only stuck a very sharp knife into the backs of the men and women of the Marine Corps-He also twisted it to add injury to insult. From one Marine to a 'so-called' another...A**Hole!

...read complete post at Gunz Blog

Posted by from the blogosphere at 06:28 PM | Permalink

Posted at Murtha Must Go!!:

The American Spectator provides us with brilliant coverage:
In the last year, ever since Tom DeLay became embroiled in the Jack Abramoff scandal, the Washington Post alone has published 168 articles mentioning Abramoff and DeLay. The Post's dogged Abramoff investigator, Susan Schmidt, has written 39 articles on Jack Abramoff in the last two years. Almost half of those made page A1 of the Post, and most were over 1,000 words in length. The Post has written enough about this scandal to fill a book -- literally -- and they probably will.

Since Rep. John Murtha made his splash in November with his call for an American troop withdrawal from Iraq, there have been no stories about Robert C. "Kit" Murtha in the Post. In fact, the Post has never mentioned Kit Murtha. A quick Lexis Nexis search turns up only a dozen or so mentions of "Kit" Murtha, Robert C. Murtha, or Robert Murtha in the last 15 years. Who is "Kit" Murtha?

He's John Murtha's brother -- a Washington lobbyist whose firm reeled in more than $20 million for its defense contractor clients in the 2004 Defense appropriations bill. And the Pennsylvania congressman is the ranking Democrat on the Defense appropriations subcommittee, which he also chaired for six years before Democrats lost the House in 1994.

It's a cozy relationship the likes of which are garnering heavy attention these days in Washington. Roy Blunt's family connections to K Street have received extensive coverage, as have Harry Reid's. Yet despite a front page story in the Los Angeles Times last June exposing Kit Murtha's firm's enormous success in steering defense contracts to its clients, other newspapers have been mostly silent: the Times has yet to follow up, and Murtha's lobbying ties have earned coverage by Roll Call and only single mentions in the Village Voice, Investor's Business Daily, and the Boston Globe just this week.If Murtha were a powerful Republican legislator, the media would probably be all over this story. A former aide from John Murtha's office, Carmen V. Scialabba, is a top official at KSA Consulting, where Kit Murtha is a senior partner. KSA has directly lobbied Murtha's office on behalf of defense clients that directly benefited from the 2004 Defense bill. Murtha's subcommittee staff helps write Defense appropriations bills and oversees the lucrative earmark requests forwarded by Democrats. The contracts for KSA clients in the bill were entirely earmarks, the L.A. Times found. The Times also reported that most of KSA's defense clients hired the firm only after Kit Murtha became a senior partner in 2002.

The Hill reported in October that John Murtha is the top House recipient of campaign contributions from the defense industry for the past three years. As of the October 31, 2005 Federal Election Commission report, Murtha had received over $200,000 from defense firms in the 2006 election cycle, surpassing the next highest recipient by over $60,000.

Kit Murtha has been lobbying for defense firms since at least 1986, when he became Westinghouse's chief lobbyist in Harrisburg. In 1994, National Journal reported, Westinghouse made Kit Murtha its director of state and local government affairs, in which role he would also lobby the Pennsylvania congressional delegation in Washington. At that time, John Murtha chaired the defense appropriations subcommittee.

And what's more, Murtha's no stranger to congressional corruption scandals. Though eventually cleared by the House ethics committee (which means nothing legally), John Murtha was an unindicted co-conspirator in the Abscam scandal. (Abscam was an FBI sting operation of members of Congress from 1978 to 1980 in which one senator and five representatives were convicted of bribery and conspiracy.) As the Cybercast News Service recently detailed, Murtha was videotaped telling an undercover FBI agent, "I'm not interested. I'm sorry... at this point." When the House ethics committee cleared Murtha in 1981, CNS reported, the committee's lead counsel, E. Barrett Prettyman Jr., quickly resigned. When asked by Roll Call if he had resigned because of the committee's Murtha vote, he said that would be "a logical conclusion." Prettyman has otherwise declined to comment on the Murtha case.

An ethically suspect member of Congress, with close, personal connections to lobbyists whose clients are benefited by his committee? What more could the Washington Post need to begin sniffing around? And now that John Murtha's a nationally prominent politician, he should naturally attract closer scrutiny.
The article concludes with what we at MMG have been speculating on for some time now..John Murtha is apparently using a controversy he created in November to shield himself from his ethical past. His comments about the war in Iraq make for convenient cover in an increasingly critical ethical atmosphere. The major media's silence is deafening. (Read the entire story)


...read complete post at Murtha Must Go!!

Posted by from the blogosphere at 12:59 PM | Permalink

Club for Growth

...read complete post at The Club For Growth - Blog

Posted by at 11:25 AM | Permalink

Posted at The Influence Peddler:

While it has not attracted as much attention as the Bill Jefferson investigation, the investigation of Alan Mollohan's finances continues to perk along. Bloomberg news reports that Mollohan secured at least $179 million in earmars for 21 companies and nonprofits, which donated about half of the overall revenue of the charitable foundation created by Mollohan:

Mollohan Helped Steer U.S. Contracts to Family-Charity Donors
June 22 (Bloomberg) -- Representative Alan Mollohan helped funnel at least $179 million in U.S. government contracts over the last six years to companies that gave to the West Virginia Democrat's family-run charity, tax records and other documents show.

The money went to 21 companies and nonprofit groups that contributed $225,427 to the Robert H. Mollohan Family Charitable Foundation in 2004 -- almost half of the charity's revenue, according to the documents. The congressman, an Appropriations Committee member whose finances are under federal investigation, is the secretary of the foundation, which is named for his father.

The charity, which distributes scholarships to West Virginia students, raises most of its money from corporate sponsors of an annual golf tournament attended by Mollohan, 63. The event gives company executives an opportunity to meet with him in a casual setting without having to report the donations as lobbying expenses.

``They are buying time, they are buying access, they are buying goodwill for their particular corporate needs,'' said Rick Cohen, executive director of the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, a Washington-based group that advocates strict ethical standards for charities.

Ron Hudok, a spokesman for Mollohan, didn't respond to an e-mail or phone calls seeking comment on the congressman's ties to the foundation.

...IRS Disclosure

While nonprofit groups are required to disclose their donors to the Internal Revenue Service, they don't have to make the list public. The Mollohan Foundation's list was made public by the office of West Virginia's secretary of state.

One of the beneficiaries is D.N. American Inc., an information technology company with headquarters in the Alan B. Mollohan Innovation Center, a federally funded office building in Mollohan's home town of Fairmont. Mollohan announced in a press release in January 2004 that the company would get part of $3 million set aside for an electronics recycling project. D.N. American gave $20,000 to the Mollohan Foundation in 2004, the charity's tax records show.

Chirag Patel, president of IMTS Services LLC, which bought D.N. American in 2005, didn't return two phone calls seeking comment.

NOAA's Computers

TMC Technologies Inc., also based in Fairmont, won a $5 million federal contract in May 2004 to overhaul the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's computer storage system, according to a press release by one of the company's subcontractors.

That year TMC gave $5,000 to the foundation. The company supports the charity because of its success in keeping West Virginia students from leaving the state to pursue their careers, said TMC President Wade Linger. TMC was bought by Greenbelt, Maryland-based Global Science and Technology Inc. in 2005.

``Generally these kind of contributions are made by successful businesspeople,'' Linger said. ``An awful lot of successful businesspeople in this state know Congressman Mollohan.''

Since 2001, Linger and his wife gave at least $54,450 to Mollohan's political committees and his company and employees gave another $20,950, according to Federal Election Commission records.

In all, the donor list includes 43 companies that gave to the Mollohan Foundation. They include nine of the top 10 contributors to Mollohan's reelection campaign in 2004, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington- based group that tracks political fund-raising.

Biggest Donors

Among the biggest donors to the charitable foundation were three nonprofit groups set up under Mollohan's leadership that gave $48,427 in 2004, the records show.

One of them, the Institute for Scientific Research Inc., gave $30,000. It received at least $100 million in Mollohan- sponsored projects, the lawmaker told the New York Times in April.

``I have been very pleased to support the Mollohan Foundation and intend to continue to support it in the future,'' said Jim Estep, who heads the institute and the West Virginia High Technology Consortium Foundation, a nonprofit organization created by Mollohan that has donated to the foundation.

Other donors include the National Housing Development Corp., a Rancho Cucamonga, California-based nonprofit company that is working with a Mollohan-backed organization, the Vandalia Heritage Foundation, to refurbish houses in Wheeling, West Virginia. The housing corporation donated $20,000 to the Mollohan Foundation and Vandalia gave $10,000.
Alan Mollohan faces a real challenger this year in Delegate Chris Wakim. He is up to his neck in questions about earmarks and personal finances. And his Congressional district gave 57% of its vote to Bush in 2004. I have to think that his name will soon be high on the list of potential takeovers this fall.

Also, you have to wonder - if this Mollohan controversy continues to grow, what effect will it have on the re-election bid of Robert Byrd? Byrd is the king of the earmark, and has always been proud of it. Will West Virginia voters start to wonder whether this is a good thing?

Back to the top.

...read complete post at The Influence Peddler

Posted by from the blogosphere at 08:43 AM | Permalink

Bill Allison

On Tuesday evening, we received the following reply to our previously issued open letter to J. Randolph Evans, who is "Counsel to Speaker J. Dennis Hastert." In that letter, we wrote in part, "we ask that you please identify the specific passages in the aforementioned story that you regard as actionable."

The text of both Mr. Evan's latest email and my response are reproduced below...

...read complete post at Bill Allison's Sunlight Foundation Blog

Posted by N.Z. Bear at 07:32 AM | Permalink

Posted at HUMAN EVENTS ONLINE - Conservative News, Views & Books:

Congratulations to Rep. Paul Ryan (R.-Wis.) and supporters of the Legislative Line-Item Veto Act, which passed the House on a 247-142 vote today.

This is a tremendous victory for Porkbusters, although it's merely one way that our elected officials can cut back on the excess spending that bloats our federal government today.

Today's vote, which only 15 Republicans opposed, was a culmination of hard work on the part of Ryan's congressional staff. Conservative bloggers also deserve credit. Ryan visited with a group of right-leaning bloggers earlier this month to talk about the plan, and my colleague, Ivy Sellers, did a superb job covering the issue. Among her several stories were these:

Line-Item Veto: A Much-Needed Scalpel (June 7)
Line-Item Veto Set for Vote in House (June 14)
Line-Item Veto Needs Support for Thursday's Vote (June 20)

As for Ryan, he sees today's vote as a needed step to bring fiscal responsibility to Washington. Here's his statement:

Our version of the line-item veto will help the President and Congress work together to get rid of unnecessary and unjustifiable spending and deter such spending requests in the first place. It is part of our larger drive to eliminate wasteful spending and bring greater accountability and transparency to Washington. While earmark reforms will help us identify and target abuse at the front of the process, the line-item veto will be an effective backstop to prevent wasteful spending from getting through at the end of the process.

I would like to thank the House leadership for bringing this bill to a floor vote and advancing this key reform, as well as everyone whose hard work led to its successful passage.

...read complete post at HUMAN EVENTS ONLINE - Conservative News, Views & Books

Posted by from the blogosphere at 11:00 PM | Permalink

Posted at WILLY NILLY:

ABC News: Comrade Tries to Kill Hastert Project

Arizona Republican Representative Jeff Flake has a set of balls. I can respect his crusade against members of his own party. He constantly rails against the useless earmarks that Ray Lahood loves to defend.

But what the thick-skinned Arizona Republican did Tuesday night is unheard of: He tried to kill a project sponsored by House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill.

Did I mention he has a set of balls.

The project in question was a $2.5 million grant to an Illinois nonprofit organization to help hi-tech companies develop new technologies for the Navy.
The president of the group, the Illinois Technology Development Alliance, is a former Hastert aide, Tom Thornton.

Hastert taking care of an old aide just like Ray Lahood did to $120,000 political hack Marliese Streitmatter getting her a job as a defense fellow.

Flake didn't know about the Hastert link when initially targeting the project. He subsequently found out and went ahead anyway.

"I don't think that is appropriate for a defense bill," he said. "We ought to be spending money … on helmets, on body armor, on other things, rather than subsidizing the technology center in a particular state."

Did diabetes candidate, I know no moderation, Speaker Hastert stand up to defend his pork?

Hastert had better uses of his time than to stroll to the floor to issue a rebuttal. Instead, Illinois GOP ally Ray LaHood came to the floor to inquire incredulously, "Do you know who earmarked this money?"

Who gives a shit who earmarked the money Ray? Maybe you can use your great taxpayer-funded benefits to find a cure for your addiction to spending tax dollars, and your scorching case of
Potomic fever
.

...read complete post at WILLY NILLY

Posted by from the blogosphere at 10:10 PM | Permalink

Posted at Pursuit of Happiness:

Sometimes I could just whack myself.
I enjoy mocking the foolish, visiting liberal blogs and making snide remarks that really are below me, and from time to time I'll engage in a debate I don't believe in just for the fun of it all. Yes, I'm a deeply troubled man.
So, it confounds me then why, in this post, I pulled my punches with Congressman Murtha. I guess it was the whole combat veteran thing. I honored his service, despised what he was now doing, and suspected that there might have been some dark motivation. At the time I wondered to myself, "is this guy trying to make himself untouchable in the press, because he knows something corrupt is going to surface?" I so wanted to suggest this, but instead just questioned his timing:

"So he's a good guy and a patriot, by virtually everyone's account. Which makes this all the more puzzling. Why, dare tell me, would a decorated veteran declare his support for a six month pull out? I could understand a lot of things, but this? It doesn't make sense."

After that I flinched. Pussy.
Today, I came across to items that make me wonder if I was - just possibly - on to something. First there was Bob Novak on the past.

"I had forgotten that federal prosecutors designated him an unindicted co-conspirator in the Abscam investigation 26 years ago."

Wow, that is pretty damning stuff! I wonder why the press hasn't reminded us about ABSCAM? I mean, it is more recent than his war duty, and they can't stop talking about that.
Then there was this, today

Last June, the Los Angeles Times reported how the ranking member on the defense appropriations subcommittee has a brother, Robert Murtha, whose lobbying firm represents 10 companies that received more than $20 million from last year's defense spending bill. "Clients of the lobbying firm KSA Consulting -- whose top officials also include former congressional aide Carmen V. Scialabba, who worked for Rep. Murtha as a congressional aide for 27 years -- received a total of $20.8 million from the bill," the L.A. Times reported.

In early 2004, according to Roll Call, Mr. Murtha "reportedly leaned on U.S. Navy officials to sign a contract to transfer the Hunters Point Shipyard to the city of San Francisco." Laurence Pelosi, nephew of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, at the time was an executive of the company which owned the rights to the land. The same article also reported how Mr. Murtha has been behind millions of dollars worth of earmarks in defense appropriations bills that went to companies owned by the children of fellow Pennsylvania Democrat, Rep. Paul Kanjorski. Meanwhile, the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan campaign-finance watchdog group, lists Mr. Murtha as the top recipient of defense industry dollars in the current 2006 election cycle.

Posted by from the blogosphere at 07:38 PM | Permalink

Posted at Hugh Hewitt:

AP:

President Bush would receive greater power to try to kill "pork barrel" spending projects under a bill passed Thursday by the House.

Lawmakers voted to give Bush and his successor a new, weaker version of the line-item veto law struck down by the Supreme Court in 1998, despite a recent series of lopsided votes in which they've rallied to preserve each other's back-home projects. It would expire after six years.

The idea advances amid increasing public concern about lawmakers' penchant for stuffing parochial projects into spending bills that the president must accept or reject in their entirety.

The House passed the bill by a 247-172 vote. Thirty-five Democrats joined with most Republicans in voting for the bill; 15 Republicans opposed the measure and voted for the bill despite private reservations

The Herald-Sun has the line-item veto at a glance:

First, within 45 days of signing a bill, the president would submit one or more messages to Congress identifying the items within the legislation that he objects to and listing the reasons for his opposition. Items are eligible to be killed if they are in spending bills or are tax cuts aimed at a single beneficiary.

Then, both the House and Senate would vote quickly on a bill containing the president's list of items without changes. If both the House and the Senate pass the list by simple majority votes, the items would be permanently rescinded.

Slacker Nation likes the idea:
Line Item Veto is back up for a vote. Our government NEEDS this. There are billions of dollars every year squandered on self-serving pet projects of government officials and lobbyists. BILLIONS! Line Item Veto could help stem the tide of "Bridges to Nowhere", Indoor Rainforests, and slow the waste caused by the likes of Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W. Va.), a career politician who funnels vast sums of Federal money into his own state. West Virginia has ranked in the top four states for pork per capita and, despite the large amount of money poured into the state, has the third lowest personal income per capita. So much for throwing money at people and government institutions to alleviate poverty.

Over at Red State, John Galt sees the earmark problem, but thinks this is the wrong solution:

The Line Item Veto is the wrong solution to a real problem. The problem that Rep. Jeb Hensarling and the members of the RSC are trying to fight is not that the Legislative Branch has too much power, it is that there has been a centralization of power within the Legislative Branch among a handful of Appropriators and the Elected Leadership that make-up the conference committees that draft the appropriations bills that get sent to the President. It is not a case that Congress has too much power; instead it is a problem that a handful of members with seniority have too much power.

Rep. Jack Kingston, an appropriator no less, also pushed the veto.

Rep. Paul Ryan, who pushed the bill, calls it a "pork parer":

While the earlier version violated constitutional principles and shifted the balance of power from Congress to the president, today's variation on the line-item veto ensures that Congress remains the final arbiter of the contents of legislation. In fact, Charles Cooper, an attorney who argued before the Supreme Court against the previous line-item veto, has testified to the constitutionality of our legislative line-item veto at three congressional hearings this year.
The current approach keeps the power of the purse in Congress -- right where it should be -- and fixes the primary problem with the president's existing rescission authority. Though the president today can propose the rescission of wasteful spending items, there's nothing to guarantee Congress ever votes on such requests. During President Reagan's administration, Congress failed to act on more than $25 billion in rescission requests, and the historical ineffectiveness of the present system has deterred presidents from using it to rein in excess spending.]]>

...read complete post at Hugh Hewitt

Posted by from the blogosphere at 07:34 PM | Permalink

Club for Growth

...read complete post at The Club For Growth - Blog

Posted by at 07:05 PM | Permalink

Glenn Reynolds

...read complete post at Instapundit.com

Posted by at 06:33 PM | Permalink

Posted at Watcher Magazine:

Two former AT&T employees say the telecom giant has maintained a secret, highly secure room in St. Louis since 2002. Intelligence experts say it bears the earmarks of a National Security Agency operation.
By Kim Zetter
Salon.com
Jun. 21, 2006
IN A PIVOTAL network operations center in metropolitan St. Louis, AT&T has maintained a secret, highly secured room since [...]]]>

...read complete post at Watcher Magazine

Posted by from the blogosphere at 03:03 PM | Permalink

Posted at chunkyrhino:


We've been bribing Ryan with money to get her to sleep in her bed. So far it's working pretty well, mostly because there's a doll she wants that she's "saving" for, and since I earmark $$ every paycheck for stuff for the kids, I figure I might as well get my money's worth out of it.
So anyway, I may or may not have mentioned this before, but...Ryan is loud. Both the kids are, but 9 times out of 10, he's just copying her. Lately it's gotten ridiculous -- she'll just let out an ear-piercing wail for no reason; in the car, the house, sometimes I can even hear her in the Kid's Gym while I'm working out. I always laugh at that last one, but the car and house thing? Just pisses me off, plus I wasn't awarded WORST DRIVER in High School for nothin' -- I need as little distractions as possible.
So far nothing has worked with the screaming bit, so when she let one loose in the car yesterday, instead of reaching back and spanking her, which was what I wanted to do, I just took away one of her dollars earned this week. Then, when she did it again at the library, she lost another dollar.
The losing money thing definitely caught her attention, however, by now the behavior is ingrained, so when she ended up screaming again during her swim lesson, she immediately froze, then turned slowly in my direction, pleading, "I'm sorry! I'm sorry Mommy! Please! I'm so sorry!!!"
At which point every head at the pool simultaneously turned toward me, standing at the farthest edge in my baggy black shift, hair pulled back tight, skin all pale (although accessorized by the faint orange-tinting of my Mystic), sporting my black Jackie O's, staring disapprovingly at my daughter.
Cue theme from "The Godfather".


...read complete post at chunkyrhino

Posted by from the blogosphere at 03:03 PM | Permalink

Posted at Objective - Justice:

Aren’t you glad these are the guys running our country?

 

House Speaker Dennis Hastert denied Thursday that he pushed for federal funding for a proposed highway in northeastern Illinois so he and his wife could reap about $1.8 million from land deals near their home in Kendall County.

The Sunlight Foundation, a newly created group whose declared aim is to inform the public about what members of Congress do, has accused Hastert of not divulging connections between the $207 million earmark he won for a highway, the Prairie Parkway, and an investment he and his wife made in nearby land.

The Foundation says Hastert used an Illinois trust to invest in real estate near the proposed route of the Prairie Parkway, and notes that Hastert's 2005 financial disclosure form, released Thursday, makes no mention of the trust. Hastert lists several real estate transactions in the disclosure, all of which were done by the trust. Kendall County public records show no record of Hastert making the real estate sales he made public today; rather, they were all executed by the trust, the Foundation says. [link]

Posted by from the blogosphere at 02:07 PM | Permalink

Posted at Peoria Pundit:

Rep. Jeff Flake, an Arizona Republican, has been annoying members of his own party by criticizing earmarks in spending bills; something people outside the Beltway call old-fashioned pork-barrel spending. While taxpayers no doubt appreciate Flake's efforts, his colleagues no doubt hate his guts. His most recent target was a $2.5 million grant to the Illinois Technology [...]

...read complete post at Peoria Pundit

Posted by from the blogosphere at 01:43 PM | Permalink

Glenn Reynolds

...read complete post at Instapundit.com

Posted by at 01:23 PM | Permalink

Posted at Colorado Coalition for Human Rights:


From the Washington Post:

House Speaker J.

Dennis Hastert

(R-Ill.) made a $2 million profit last year on the sale of land 5 1/2 miles from a highway project that he helped to finance with targeted federal funds.A Republican House member from California, meanwhile, received nearly double what he paid for a four-acre parcel near an Air Force base after securing $8 million for a planned freeway interchange 16 miles away. And another California GOP congressman obtained funding in last year's highway bill for street improvements near a planned residential and commercial development that he co-owns.

In all three cases, Hastert and

Reps. Ken Calvert

and

Gary Miller

say that they were securing funds their home districts wanted badly, and that in no way did the earmarks have any impact on the land values of their investments. But for watchdog groups, the cases have opened a fresh avenue for investigation and a new wrinkle in the ongoing controversy over earmarks -- home-district projects funded through narrowly written legislative language.For more than a year, the congressional corruption scandal triggered by former lobbyist Jack Abramoff has focused attention on earmarks secured by lawmakers on lobbyists' and government contractors' behalf. Now watchdog groups are combing through lawmakers' land holdings and legislative activities, searching for earmarks that may have boosted the value of those investments.

Click here to read the full article.
--Tom Hayes


...read complete post at Colorado Coalition for Human Rights

Posted by from the blogosphere at 01:19 PM | Permalink

Posted at The Richmond Democrat:


Richmond, Virginia -- June 22, 2006
It looks like Republicans in Congress have discovered another nifty way to get rich quick. Buy land that isn't connected to a major highway for a low price, earmark money in Congress to build a highway to or through your land, then sell your land at a hefty profit.
Whose name is at the top of the list? Republican Speaker of the House Denny Hastert. Jonathan Weisman of
The Washington Post
has an article online entitled "Lawmakers' Profits are Scrutinized."

...read complete post at The Richmond Democrat

Posted by from the blogosphere at 12:55 PM | Permalink

Posted at Midtopia:


Congressional corruption is a hot topic, but these seem to be more smoke than fire:

House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) made a $2 million profit last year on the sale of land 5 1/2 miles from a highway project that he helped to finance with targeted federal funds.
A Republican House member from California, meanwhile, received nearly double what he paid for a four-acre parcel near an Air Force base after securing $8 million for a planned freeway interchange 16 miles away. And another California GOP congressman obtained funding in last year's highway bill for street improvements near a planned residential and commercial development that he co-owns.

I'm all for scrutinizing lawmaker finances, and earmarks are a growing problem. But the connections here seem tenuous at best. For instance:

Arthur C. Zwemke, a Robert Arthur partner whose company plans to build a 1,635-home residential and commercial development on the site, scoffed at assertions that the Prairie Parkway had boosted the value of Hastert's land. The price for the land had been locked up in 2004 by land speculator Ron March, who then ceded the project to Robert Arthur Land, he said. The price, he added, could not have risen with the news of the Prairie Parkway funding. Besides, the parkway is still years from construction, he noted, and land prices are soaring as Chicago's sprawl moves ever westward.

The California airbase case is a little stronger, because even if Rep. Ken Calvert's gains were "in line with rising property values," one reason the property values were rising was because of his earmark. It's Congressional insider trading. So look more closely at that one.
The third case, involving Rep. Gary Miller, seems as weak as Hastert's:

Miller, the other California Republican, helped secure $1.28 million in last year's highway bill for street improvements near a planned residential and commercial development in Diamond Bar, Calif., that he co-owns with a top campaign contributor.
Kevin McKee, a Miller spokesman, said the road improvement was a mile away from the development and had been designated by Diamond Bar officials as their top priority.

Scrutinize Congress? Fine. But care must be taken to avoid turning a concern about corruption into a witchhunt. Congressmen live (well, maintain a residence) in their district, and bring federal money home to their district. That almost inevitably leads to federal money being spent near places that the Congressman may have a financial interest in. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. Watchdogs must meet a higher standard of proof than simply pointing out those geographical facts.

Gary Miller, Calvert, Hastert, corruption, Congress, politics, midtopia

...read complete post at Midtopia

Posted by from the blogosphere at 12:16 PM | Permalink

Posted at After School Snack:


My still-kinda-new job demands a bit of attention to the sordid phenomenon of earmarks, described in the Washington Post as "home-district projects funded through narrowly written legislative language." As attendees of a recent conference said over and over, many of the federal programs which support academic activities - scholarly research, curriculum refinement, faculty development, even buying computers and building new facilities - are in constant danger of getting slashed or eliminated when some bozo from Hicksville figures out a way to raid the program's appropriations and put the money toward an earmarked project.

In 2005, for instance, the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education had to cancel its open competition for much-needed support of meritorious higher-ed projects when 418 lawmaker-chosen handouts ate up the entire appropriation. The money went to oh-so-worthwhile projects like the Strom Thurmond Wellness and Fitness Center at the University of South Carolina. I'm sure the $5 million was put to good use on their indoor climbing wall and sand volleyball courts, and I'm equally sure that five mil wouldn't have helped some middling state school improve its academic offerings.
These kinds of hijinks are bad enough when they cripple a much-needed source of money for higher ed, which is still America's most powerful engine of personal and social improvement. Earmarks are all the worse when they facilitate outright corruption. The Post has an excellent article today on the big money made by several congressmen (no prizes for guessing their party) who earmarked highway projects, then sold parcels off land near the new highways and made hefty profits. It's a shameful situation, and one that makes it even clearer that the GOP is more interested in personal profit and grandstanding on issues like flag-burning than in actually trying to run the country. I can't wait for November.


...read complete post at After School Snack

Posted by from the blogosphere at 11:43 AM | Permalink

Posted at Murtha Must Go!!:

From here:

The Times collects a number of tidbits. The Los Angeles Times reported last year that Murtha's brother, Robert, runs a lobbying firm that represents 10 companies that received more than $20 million from last year's defense spending bill. Another official of the lobbying firm is a former Murtha congressional aide. Murtha is the ranking member of the House subcommittee that appropriates this money.

Murtha's role in the culture of corruption also implicates Pelosi herself. Roll Call reported last year that Murtha "reportedly leaned on U.S. Navy officials to sign a contract to transfer the Hunters Point Shipyard to the city of San Francisco." Pelosi's nephew, Laurence Pelosi, was an executive of the company that owned the rights to the land. Roll Call also reported that Murtha has been behind millions of dollars worth of earmarks in defense appropriations bills that went to companies owned by the children of his fellow Pennsylvania Democrat, Rep. Paul Kanjorski. And the Center for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan campaign finance watchdog group, lists Murtha as the top recipient of defense industry dollars in the current 2006 election cycle. (read the rest)

Posted by from the blogosphere at 11:16 AM | Permalink

Posted at Cheat Seeking Missiles:


The thesis of this post is straightforward and hardly new: Papers like the Washington Post dig for news where they want to dig, and vice versa. A Republican leader is good digging, while a Dem anti-war mouthpiece seems to be protected.
WaPo has a big story today on Speaker Dennis Hastert's efforts to bring a new road, the Prairie Parkway, to northern Illinois. Just another pork story? No, this one alleges corruption because Hastert owns property 5 1/2 miles ... that's 5 1/2 miles ... from the road.
I have to ask ... 5 1/2 miles? If location is everything in real estate, there are a whole lot of locations between Hastert's land and the proposed new road that got more feathers for their nest.

Curious about this, I dug into the WaPo story deeper, until I found its attack on Rep. Ken Calvert. Calvert's crime?
Last year, Calvert, the California Republican congressman, and a business partner bought a four-acre parcel near the March Air Reserve Base in Riverside County, Calif., for $550,000. He then secured $8 million for a planned freeway interchange 16 miles away, an additional $1.5 million to support commercial development around the airfield, and sold the property less than a year later for almost $1 million.Sixteen miles? I went to Google Maps and put March AFB right in the middle and took a look. Within 16 miles of March AFB are the cities of Colton, Moreno Valley, Redlands, Perris and Riverside. Five freeways are within the circle and, knowing the area pretty well, I can guess that there are upwards of 50 interchanges within 16 miles of March AFB.
The impact of this far-distant interchange on Calvert's landholding: Zero.
The Feds have supported commercial development around March since the base was closed in the 1980s, and it's a good thing, because it's shifting the jobs/housing balance, and saving people in the area from the deadly commute to LA and OC. Besides, another $1.5 million is nothing. Really. It builds almost nothing today an WaPo doesn't let us know what was built with it. The only excuses for that are deliberate shading or bad reporting.
Finally, a profit of $450,000 in one year. Unbelievably, in that particular year, it wasn't out of the ordinary.

The Murtha Contrast

Meanwhile, WashTimes editorializes on Jack Murtha's financial shenanigans which are legend:

Murtha's brother Robert is a defense lobbyist who represented companies that received more than $20 million from last year's defense bill. (LATimes reported this earlier)
That lobbying firm also employs a guy who worked for John Murtha for 27 years.
Murtha directed efforts to move the Hunters Point Shipyard to San Francisco. Nancy Pelosi's nephew, Laurence Pelosi, owned the land that would be come the new shipyard. (A Roll Call story covered this, and a story about Murtha's earmarks that benefitted PA Dem Paul Kanjorski's kids.
Oh, and by the way, the FBI named Murtha an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1980 Abscam scandal.
But he appears to have immunity, avoiding prolonged press scrutiny of the sort WaPo is trying to fire up around Hastert's deal. Could it be that Murtha, seeing Cunningham's troubles, decided to become the anti-war spokesperson in order to get MSM immunity?
Stranger things have happened.

hat-tip:
memeorandum

photo: Riverside Press Enterprise
Related Tags: Dennis Hastert, John Murtha, Politics, Corruption, Media bias

...read complete post at Cheat Seeking Missiles

Posted by from the blogosphere at 11:02 AM | Permalink

Posted yesterday at Tapscott’s Copy Desk:

Billions of tax dollars pay every year for thousands of research projects, most of which are supported by grants issued by 11 federal departments and agencies. Those projects result in numerous articles in professional journals but those are read by only a tiny fraction of the people who actually pay for the research.
So Sen. John Cornyn, R-TX, and Joseph Lieberman, D-CT, have introduced the Federal Research Public Access Act of 2006, which mandates that the results of all research reports paid for with federal tax dollars be published on the Internet within six months.
Go here for more information on the bill and links to media coverage of the proposal such as this article from Federal Computer Week. The mainstream media hasn't discovered this bill yet, but I'll bet there are lots of folks in the Blogosphere who should know about it and will enthusiastically encourage its passage.

politics

Media

transparency

NIH

federal spending

PorkBusters

...read complete post at Tapscott’s Copy Desk

Posted by from the blogosphere at 11:00 AM | Permalink

Posted at The Influence Peddler:


The Washington Times notes that John Murtha may have helped secure earmarks that benefitted his brother and a former staffer:

Last June, the Los Angeles Times reported how the ranking member on the defense appropriations subcommittee has a brother, Robert Murtha, whose lobbying firm represents 10 companies that received more than $20 million from last year's defense spending bill. "Clients of the lobbying firm KSA Consulting -- whose top officials also include former congressional aide Carmen V. Scialabba, who worked for Rep. Murtha as a congressional aide for 27 years -- received a total of $20.8 million from the bill," the L.A. Times reported.
In early 2004, according to Roll Call, Mr. Murtha "reportedly leaned on U.S. Navy officials to sign a contract to transfer the Hunters Point Shipyard to the city of San Francisco." Laurence Pelosi, nephew of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, at the time was an executive of the company which owned the rights to the land. The same article also reported how Mr. Murtha has been behind millions of dollars worth of earmarks in defense appropriations bills that went to companies owned by the children of fellow Pennsylvania Democrat, Rep. Paul Kanjorski. Meanwhile, the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan campaign-finance watchdog group, lists Mr. Murtha as the top recipient of defense industry dollars in the current 2006 election cycle.
The emerging earmark scandal is beginning to remind me of the House check-kiting scandal. Members of Congress were permitted to write checks and have them cashed regardless of their account balances; the checks were covered by the deposits of other account holders. Members of Congress in general did not see this as a big deal, and there were some very large abusers of the privilege. The key thing was that the culture suddenly changed, and a practice that no one thought twice about came to be regarded as scandalous overnight.
In the same way, most appropriations lobbyists are people who have either worked on the Appropriations Committees, or worked for Congressmen who sit on the Committees. Many knew the people who are now their employers when they worked in government; many in the private sector now lobby their former employers or coworkers. Personal ties, geographic ties, and political ties all tend to encourage lasting relationships between congressmen, staffers, and earmark-seekers. This is standard operating procedure.
In a system such as this, you will be able to find many instances where an earmark secured by a member benefits a former staffer, or where a government employee goes to work for a client whose earmark requests he/she handled while in Congress. But like the check-kiting scandal, it seems that the culture may be changing overnight. There may soon be a lot of staffers and congressmen answering questions about practices that they never gave a second thought, just a few days ago.
Hat tip, Powerline.

Back to the top.


...read complete post at The Influence Peddler

Posted by from the blogosphere at 10:18 AM | Permalink

Posted at Born at the Crest of the Empire:

Hamid Karzai, "the mayor of Kabul," says the US's strategy in the war on terror is wrong.

And, Mr. Bush, if you want to shut Guantanamo, you can, with the wave of a pen. The only thing stopping you is the fact that these people have been held illegally and thus cannot be tried in US courts. Oh, wait, that was your decision too, right?

The Army has raised the maximum enlistment age to 42. 42! I'm not there yet, but already have to take a day off after playing tennis. Can you imagine Boot Camp at 42?

The Wall Street Journal has a big map graphic of Zogby polling on the 2006 Senate races. (Credit to Harold Ford for making Tennessee a race.)

The WaPo has a front page story on three Republican congressmen, Hastert, Calvert, and Miller, who just happened to reap massive real estate profits from earmarks they added to legislation.

Rick Santorum, flailing about for any kind of attention in his losing Senate reelection campaign, claimed on the Senate floor yesterday that WMD have been found in Iraq!!!! You know, Rick, when your pro-administration claims don't make it onto Drudge, and you get shot down in person on FoxNews, you're way too far out there.

Finally, I stick this at the bottom because, judging by the coverage of the media, this is where they think this news belongs. Five US soldiers were killed in Iraq yesterday. Four US soldiers were killed in Afghanistan yesterday.

...read complete post at Born at the Crest of the Empire

Posted by from the blogosphere at 09:29 AM | Permalink

Posted at College Conservative Movement:

FINALLY congress is doing something to control itself. For years... little tacked on earmarks to laws have caused irresponsible spending...

...read complete post at College Conservative Movement

Posted by from the blogosphere at 09:07 AM | Permalink

Posted at The Quincy Pundit:


In what has become a yearly ritual since Blago took office, the MOU (Memoranda of Understanding) were released. These MOU's amount to over $70 million dollars in pork projects that Democrat only members are sure to get in writing, because they don't trust him either.
Once again, the Chicago area made out like bandits and we get to pay for it. I haven't been able to find anything local on the list. Maybe Sullivan can explain why he voted for another irresponsible budget that takes, for example, the dollars that were supposed to be paid into the pension system of the employees of the public University to pay for the improvements to the private schools, instead.
Don't let anyone convince you that being a member of the current party in power is any advantange to getting anything done here in west central IL. These "member projects" should be done away with as well as Congressional earmarks.


...read complete post at The Quincy Pundit

Posted by from the blogosphere at 08:13 AM | Permalink

Posted at Thoughts of an Average Woman:

Why should earmarks be scrutinized? As Weissman starts his article, he points to three republicans in the House that have profited greatly for monies they claimed were badly needed.House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) made a $2 million profit last...

...read complete post at Thoughts of an Average Woman

Posted by from the blogosphere at 08:09 AM | Permalink

Posted at Vox Verax:

Hastert and Others Defend Land Gains

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer

House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) made a $2 million profit last year on the sale of land 5 1/2 miles from a highway project that he helped to finance with targeted federal funds.

A Republican House member from California, meanwhile, received nearly double what he paid for a four-acre parcel near an Air Force base after securing $8 million for a planned freeway interchange 16 miles away. And another California GOP congressman obtained funding in last year's highway bill for street improvements near a planned residential and commercial development that he co-owns.

In all three cases, Hastert and Reps. Ken Calvert and Gary Miller say that they were securing funds their home districts wanted badly, and that in no way did the earmarks have any impact on the land values of their investments. But for watchdog groups, the cases have opened a fresh avenue for investigation and a new wrinkle in the ongoing controversy over earmarks -- home-district projects funded through narrowly written legislative language.

For more than a year, the congressional corruption scandal triggered by former lobbyist Jack Abramoff has focused attention on earmarks secured by lawmakers on lobbyists' and government contractors' behalf. Now watchdog groups are combing through lawmakers' land holdings and legislative activities, searching for earmarks that may have boosted the value of those investments.

"The sound bites from politicians have always been that they're doing what's best for their districts, but we're starting to see a pattern that looks like they might be doing what's best for their pocketbooks," said Keith Ashdown, vice president of the group Taxpayers for Common Sense.

The allegation that Hastert used a home-district "earmark" for his personal enrichment is now at the center of a tussle between the most powerful man in Congress and a new watchdog organization that uncovered the land deal this month. Hastert has strongly denied any wrongdoing and has demanded a retraction from the Sunlight Foundation, a new group that first made the allegation in a detailed report on its Web site last week.

(The rest is here.)

...read complete post at Vox Verax

Posted by from the blogosphere at 07:50 AM | Permalink

Posted at ReidBlog:

So what's the GOP-controlled Congress up to these days?

Killing a vote on renewal of the Voting Rights Act:
House leaders abruptly canceled a vote to renew the 1965 Voting Rights Act yesterday after rank-and-file Republicans revolted over provisions that require bilingual ballots in many places and continued federal oversight of voting practices in Southern states.

The intensity of the complaints, raised in a closed meeting of GOP lawmakers, surprised Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and his lieutenants, who thought the path was clear to renew the act's key provisions for 25 years. The act is widely considered a civil rights landmark that helped thousands of African Americans gain access to the ballot box. Its renewal seemed assured when House and Senate Republican and Democratic leaders embraced it in a May 2 kickoff on the Capitol steps.

But many Southerners feel the law has achieved its purpose and become more nuisance than necessity in several respects. They have aired those arguments for years, but yesterday they got a boost from Republicans scattered throughout the nation who are increasingly raising a different concern: They insist that immigrants learn and use English.

Hastert's office said the Republican leadership "is committed to passing the Voting Rights Act legislation as soon as possible." Several House members, acknowledging that the GOP leadership had been caught flat-footed by the intraparty ruckus, said it was unclear whether the issue will be revisited before the week-long Independence Day recess....enriching themselves and carousing with lobbyists...
House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) made a $2 million profit last year on the sale of land 5 1/2 miles from a highway project that he helped to finance with targeted federal funds.

A Republican House member from California, meanwhile, received nearly double what he paid for a four-acre parcel near an Air Force base after securing $8 million for a planned freeway interchange 16 miles away. And another California GOP congressman obtained funding in last year's highway bill for street improvements near a planned residential and commercial development that he co-owns.

In all three cases, Hastert and Reps. Ken Calvert and Gary Miller say that they were securing funds their home districts wanted badly, and that in no way did the earmarks have any impact on the land values of their investments. But for watchdog groups, the cases have opened a fresh avenue for investigation and a new wrinkle in the ongoing controversy over earmarks -- home-district projects funded through narrowly written legislative language.

For more than a year, the congressional corruption scandal triggered by former lobbyist Jack Abramoff has focused attention on earmarks secured by lawmakers on lobbyists' and government contractors' behalf. Now watchdog groups are combing through lawmakers' land holdings and legislative activities, searching for earmarks that may have boosted the value of those investments.

"The sound bites from politicians have always been that they're doing what's best for their districts, but we're starting to see a pattern that looks like they might be doing what's best for their pocketbooks," said Keith Ashdown, vice president of the group Taxpayers for Common Sense....raising their own pay, while killing an increase in the pitiful $5.15 an hour federal minimum wage ... (by the way, nice to see the National Association of Manufacturers blogging for The Hill.)

...and preparing to pass a law that will kill the estate tax for about 12,600 of the richest Americans -- rich folk who, more than likely, will wind up donating some of their stored up loot, to them.

Nice work if you can get it.

Tags: Politics, Corruption, Congress, Politics, Republicans

...read complete post at ReidBlog

Posted by from the blogosphere at 07:19 AM | Permalink

Posted at Wot Is It Good 4:


* josh: "Good work: the Hastert earmark scam makes it into the Washington Post. "that's what qualifies for 'good work' these days? at least they front-paged the story.
* at least wapo adds some detail: "In 2002, Hastert was driving to a parade in Sycamore, Ill., when he saw a post-and-beam house he fell in love with, according to Dallas C. Ingemunson, a longtime friend and ally of Hastert's who made the land deals for the speaker. Hastert struck a deal with the owner on the spot, purchasing the house near Plano, Ill., and 195 acres for $2.1 million.
In February 2004, Ingemunson, treasurer of Hastert's campaign committee and chairman of the Kendall County Republican Party, established Little Rock Trust #225. A week later, through the trust, Hastert and his business partners purchased a 69-acre parcel for $340,000, providing road access to part of Hastert's farm that had been landlocked. Hastert owned a quarter of that parcel.
In May 2005, Hastert transferred the 69 acres of previously hemmed-in land from his farm to the land trust. That summer, Hastert personally intervened during House and Senate negotiations over a huge transportation and infrastructure bill to secure two separate earmarks, $152 million to help build the Prairie Parkway through Kendall County and $55 million for an interchange 5 1/2 miles from his property. President Bush signed the bill into law on Aug. 10.
Then, on Dec. 7, Little Rock Trust #225 sold the Hastert parcels to a subsidiary of the Robert Arthur Land Co. for nearly $5 million. The deal netted Hastert a $2 million profit."Good to see WaPo actually note that Ingemunson is Hastert's treasurer as well. I hadn't seen that reported elsewhere.
Wapo adds: "Hastert's attorney, J. Randolph Evans, fired off a letter to the Sunlight Foundation last week, demanding "that the false, libelous and defamatory matter be immediately withdrawn and corrected." In his letter, Evans said that asserting that a new road project would have an impact on land values more than 5 1/2 miles away "would be like complaining about a purchase in Alexandria, Virginia, based on renovations at the Capitol.""Randy Evans also 'fired off a letter' to Vanity Fair when David Rose's article came out - with much more serious allegations. It's not obvious why those allegations, and that rebuttal, didn't make the front page of wapo.
more soon.


...read complete post at Wot Is It Good 4

Posted by from the blogosphere at 03:51 AM | Permalink

Posted at mcarthurweb:


Oh, yeah, it's all of them. Inject some chaos into the system -- Anti-Vote is the Antidote:

...Last June, the Los Angeles Times reported how the ranking member on the defense appropriations [Jack Murtha] subcommittee has a brother, Robert Murtha, whose lobbying firm represents 10 companies that received more than $20 million from last year's defense spending bill. "Clients of the lobbying firm KSA Consulting -- whose top officials also include former congressional aide Carmen V. Scialabba, who worked for Rep. Murtha as a congressional aide for 27 years -- received a total of $20.8 million from the bill," the L.A. Times reported.

In early 2004, according to Roll Call, Mr. Murtha "reportedly leaned on U.S. Navy officials to sign a contract to transfer the Hunters Point Shipyard to the city of San Francisco." Laurence Pelosi, nephew of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, at the time was an executive of the company which owned the rights to the land. The same article also reported how Mr. Murtha has been behind millions of dollars worth of earmarks in defense appropriations bills that went to companies owned by the children of fellow Pennsylvania Democrat, Rep. Paul Kanjorski.

Meanwhile, the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan campaign-finance watchdog group, lists Mr. Murtha as the top recipient of defense industry dollars in the current 2006 election cycle...

Source: Washington Times

...embrace the nihilism, your life's going nowhere anyhow...

Posted by from the blogosphere at 03:03 AM | Permalink

Posted at VOLuntarilyConservative:

(Candidate responses are in bold.)

General Information:

Name: David Lee Davis
Age: 47
Occupation: State Representative and Business Owner
Family: Wife, Joyce (26 years), Daughter, Rachel (18), Son, Matthew (20)
Education: Unicoi County High School (1977), Bachelors Degree, Milligan College (1991)

Getting to Know You:

Favorite Book: The Coming Economic Earthquake (Larry Burkett)
Favorite Movie: Oh Brother, Where Art Thou
Favorite TV Show: The Andy Griffith Show
Favorite Restaurant:Favorite Website: The Drudge Report
Favorite Leisure Activity: Travel
Favorite Vacation Spot: My cabin in the mountains of East Tennessee
3 Favorite Songs:
(1) Have you Forgotten? (Daryl Worley)(2) God Bless America(3) Rocky Top
3 Most Admired People:
(1) Ronald Reagan;

(2) Thomas Jefferson;(3) Bill Dunn

Questions:

1) National Spending - The Republican-led Congress has done little to curtail spending since the GOP last came into power in 2003. The national debt is approaching $8,500,000,000,000.00 according to Congressional Budget Office estimates. Conservatives both in D.C. and beyond the Beltway have put forth possible solutions, from targeting earmarks (through Senator Coburn's "Pork Busters" program) to altering the budget cycle (as with Ed Bryant's calls for a biennial budget). This sparks two questions:

a) How do you propose that Congressional spending be brought under control so that present and future generations are not saddled with extreme debts?

There are too many social programs right now, and this leads to problems. Many illegal immigrants come to our country to use these services without paying taxes. Pork projects must be either dramatically reduced or written out of the budget entirely. I support a biennial budget and the reduction of earmarks. In any event, we must get spending under control.

b) Is your personal philosophy regarding the budget more along the lines of a traditional conservative or like that of former Congressman Jimmy Quillen, a 1st District hero who brought many federal dollars to East Tennessee that have assisted so many citizens of the 1st District?

I have an enormous amount of respect for the many wonderful things Congressman Quillen was able to do for our district. However, we have different problems facing our country right now and I will be a very different congressman. Our budget has grown out of control, and getting a handle on this critical issue is imperative. I realize doing just this will come at the expense of many pork projects, but that is a sacrifice I believe we must make to preserve the long-term stability of our country. America must still be a great place to live for our children and grandchildren many years down the road.

2) Illegal Immigration - This is an issue that has garnered more attention as 2006 has progressed, with strong feelings lying on both sides of the debate. Everything from amnesty to shooting illegal aliens trying to cross over our borders has been put on the table. What specific measures would you support in the Congress to deal with this problem?

Illegal means illegal. No amnesty. If someone is here illegally, they must go home. Extending social benefits to illegal immigrants must stop. Rewarding people who have entered our country illegally with any route to citizenship sends the wrong message to the American people as well as the rest of the world. While I am pleased that President Bush has tried to address this problem, the current plan could go much farther in many areas.

Securing the border is the first step. In some places, we need a fence. In some places, we need a wall. I also support the use of electronic surveillance but only if it can be used in a cost-effective manner.

3) Abortion - The right to life has remained one of the most divisive issues in American politics for several decades. What are your views on the abortion debate? Do you believe that the power to regulate abortion (either positively or negatively) lies with the states or with the federal government? If you are pro-life, do you believe that there should be any exceptions where abortion should be allowable?

I believe life begins at conception and that all life must be protected by our federal government. The only exception would be to protect the life of a mother. I have voted to protect life for eight years and have received the endorsements of the National Republican Coalition for Life as well as the Tennessee Right to Life.

4) Military Intervention in the Middle East - President Bush has gone on the record as saying that American forces will remain in Iraq and Afghanistan until at least 2008. What are your views towards the current American foreign military involvement in the Middle East?

It is realistic to say that we will likely keep a presence in the Middle East for many years just as we have maintained in other countries. Cutting and running is not an option. We must allow Iraq to become a democratic ally in a very hostile area of the globe.

5) Energy Policy - Throughout the past several decades, America has drifted along without a sincere energy policy, resulting in others (whether sovereign states or corporations) dictating market forces regarding what we pay for energy and the sources of that energy (oil, coal, etc.). What would you add to a comprehensive national energy policy that would benefit the people of the 1st District?

The most obvious thing to do is drill in ANWR to increase domestic energy production. It is important to find safe nuclear energy to further aid our domestic supply. We would be in a tough state if certain countries supplying our energy needs decided to cease trade relations, so it is critical that we develop our own means of production. This concept would also lower the cost of energy which is something we must do for taxpayers.

6) Right to Bear Arms - Both the Federal and Tennessee Constitutions reflect strong language designed to protect the right to bear arms. What have you done personally to protect these rights, including passing knowledge to others or future generations?

I am a long-time member of the NRA. As a state Representative, I earned an A+ rating from the NRA and consistently voted to protect our Second Amendment rights in Nashville. I also have an Excellent rating from Gun Owners of America.

7) Committee Assignments - Those who have served on Capitol Hill know that much of what you can accomplish depends on what committees or subcommittees to which you are assigned. What particular committee assignments would you push for if elected to Congress, and what would you hope to accomplish in those committees?

I believe the Appropriations Committee is the place I would be most useful. There are too many wasteful items in our federal budget and we must get spending under control. If I sit on this committee during my years of service, I will provide a responsible voice to combat the free-spending spirit which is currently being employed.

8) Goals and Terms - In thirty words or less, what do you hope to accomplish through your service to the 1st District? Also, do you pledge to term-limit yourself like Senators Bill Frist and Tom Coburn have done? If so, how many terms will you serve?

I am a proven conservative legislator and I plan to take my conservative principles to Washington to fight for the American taxpayer while exercising staunch fiscal restraint and sound moral judgment throughout my tenure, however long it may be.

...read complete post at VOLuntarilyConservative

Posted by from the blogosphere at 02:48 AM | Permalink

Josh Marshall

You can tell how bad a deal is by the mendacity used to defend it. Take, for example, J. Randolph Evans, Esq. (sounds like someone out of Trading Places), attorney for Denny Hastert. He defends Hastert's land-deal earmarks by "asserting that a new road project would have an impact on land values more than 5 1/2 miles away 'would be like...

...read complete post at Talking Points Memo: by Joshua Micah Marshall

Posted by at 01:38 AM | Permalink

Josh Marshall

...read complete post at Talking Points Memo: by Joshua Micah Marshall

Posted by at 01:05 AM | Permalink

Posted at The Dumb Ox:

Dumb Ox Flashback (NO PARODY)

The Dumb Ox revealed back in early DECEMBER 2005 Murtha's antics as part of his scheme to avoid ethics and criminal corruption charges :

"Murtha's about-face on the war turns out to be nothing but a huge attempt to deflect an inquiry into his abuse of power on the Defense Appropriations Committee...."

A point we have amplified ever since. (Search this blog for "murtha" if you have the stomach for it.)

Now, perhaps, Murtha has over-played his fat hand. The Washington Times recalls "the real Murtha" ...

"Rep. John Murtha is thinking big thoughts. Since coming out for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq last year, he has accused Marines of murder "in cold blood" before a preliminary investigation is even complete; accused the military of a cover up over the same incident; declared his candidacy for the House majority leadership post; and, most recently, refined his cut-and-run strategy in Iraq to mean "redeployment" to Okinawa, Japan.
That's quite a splash for such a veteran congressman, who a year ago had zero name recognition outside Washington. That he's made a name for himself now by slandering our troops and their mission deserves a brief recital of some other activities associated with Mr. Murtha.
Last June, the Los Angeles Times reported how the ranking member on the defense appropriations subcommittee has a brother, Robert Murtha, whose lobbying firm represents 10 companies that received more than $20 million from last year's defense spending bill. ...
In early 2004, according to Roll Call, Mr. Murtha "reportedly leaned on U.S. Navy officials to sign a contract to transfer the Hunters Point Shipyard to the city of San Francisco." Laurence Pelosi, nephew of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, at the time was an executive of the company which owned the rights to the land. The same article also reported how Mr. Murtha has been behind millions of dollars worth of earmarks in defense appropriations bills that went to companies owned by the children of fellow Pennsylvania Democrat, Rep. Paul Kanjorski. Meanwhile, the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan campaign-finance watchdog group, lists Mr. Murtha as the top recipient of defense industry dollars in the current 2006 election cycle. ...
... Since December, Mr. Murtha has become the darling of the antiwar crowd, and, as we've seen with other such darlings, scrutinizing their behavior is considered disrespectful. But as we're on the subject, few might recall that after the massive 1980 Abscam scandal, Mr. Murtha was named by the FBI as an "unindicted co-conspirator.""

Welcome to Dumb Ox News and Open Trackback Townhall... your tantalizing source of real and fake news! Updated regularly by yours truly and by top bloggers with trackbacks to their best news, humor and opinion posts! NOW WITH AUTOMATED TRACKBACK POSTING!!! Use Wizbang pinger or Haloscan pinger for best results. (remember to link this post in your article)

WELCOME ALSO TO ANTI-MURTHA CENTRAL!!! (But feel free to leave tb's that are anti-Levin, anti-Kerry, anti-Durbin, anti-Pelosi... well, you get the idea!)

WMD!? Did somebody say WMD? For more info on the WMD in Iraq (which we've lo-o-o-ong predicted would show up, and of which we expect more to come) made public by Sens. Santorum and Hoekstra yesterday, see Michelle Malkin's post, or for the full transcript of their news conference see Glenn Reynolds' post.

Linked to (later today): Diane's Stuff**Linkfest**Michelle Malkin**Don Surber**Basil's Blog** Mudville Gazette**Conservative Cat**Right Wing Nation**Blue Star Chronicles
**Woman Honor Thyself**Freedom Watch**Third World County**Cigar Intelligence Agency**Euphoric Reality**Pursuing Holiness**TMH's Bacon Bits**Blame Bush!**
p.s. We at the Dumb Ox use all of our sponsors (except the dating services--Mrs. Ox would object). We love Revival Soy shakes, bars, chips; we use Purity vitamins (Omega 3, Perfect Multi, Joint Complex) everyday; Cloncom phone cards and Pin Plan phone cards; and we shop way too much at Sierra Trading Post where sportswear, dress clothes and outdoor stuff is always 30-75% off! We regularly post special sales from Walmart, Office Depot, and more. Best wishes friends! D. Ox


...read complete post at The Dumb Ox

Posted by from the blogosphere at 12:52 AM | Permalink

Posted at Bienvenue:

[hat tip:Michael Savage]

Media darling and war hero Jack Murtha is being bitch slapped by the rightwing blogosphere. And with very good reason. When the Haditha story was published by Time Magazine's Tim McGirk, Murtha was the first to go to the national press and claim that the Marines were "guilty of murder and covering it up." All this without a shred of evidence that the marines did anything wrong. Hugh Hewitt wrote, "I cannot imagine a more irresponsible statement from Congressman Murtha given that the investigation is still open. The Congressman should explain his sources, or face the charge that he has judged the men involved before the evidence is even compiled."



Up until a year ago, Murtha was a nobody. He was known only in restrictive Washington circles. More than likely he was trolling the inner sanctum circles of elitist, leftwing cocktail parties. With his recent presidential aspirations percolating to the surface, going full force against our troops, the war effort and the president seemed the only way for him to get his non-agenda into the MSM. And taking a cue from Cindy Sheehan, it is working. The leftists in the MSM love Murtha, the DailyKOS wants to have his love child and, the spotlight is truly blinding him right now.

    Last June, the Los Angeles Times reported how the ranking member on the defense appropriations subcommittee has a brother, Robert Murtha, whose lobbying firm represents 10 companies that received more than $20 million from last year's defense spending bill. "Clients of the lobbying firm KSA Consulting -- whose top officials also include former congressional aide Carmen V. Scialabba, who worked for Rep. Murtha as a congressional aide for 27 years -- received a total of $20.8 million from the bill," the L.A. Times reported.
    In early 2004, according to Roll Call, Mr. Murtha "reportedly leaned on U.S. Navy officials to sign a contract to transfer the Hunters Point Shipyard to the city of San Francisco." Laurence Pelosi, nephew of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, at the time was an executive of the company which owned the rights to the land. The same article also reported how Mr. Murtha has been behind millions of dollars worth of earmarks in defense appropriations bills that went to companies owned by the children of fellow Pennsylvania Democrat, Rep. Paul Kanjorski. Meanwhile, the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan campaign-finance watchdog group, lists Mr. Murtha as the top recipient of defense industry dollars in the current 2006 election cycle.

Posted by from the blogosphere at 11:54 PM | Permalink

Posted at Dad29:


"St." Jack Murtha, who has no problem whatsoever with absurd troop-redeployments, may have some problems a LOT closer to home:

Last June, the Los Angeles Times reported how the ranking member on the defense appropriations subcommittee has a brother, Robert Murtha, whose lobbying firm represents 10 companies that received more than $20 million from last year's defense spending bill. "Clients of the lobbying firm KSA Consulting -- whose top officials also include former congressional aide Carmen V. Scialabba, who worked for Rep. Murtha as a congressional aide for 27 years -- received a total of $20.8 million from the bill," the L.A. Times reported

[A Roll Call article from 2004] also reported how Mr. Murtha has been behind millions of dollars worth of earmarks in defense appropriations bills that went to companies owned by the children of fellow Pennsylvania Democrat, Rep. Paul Kanjorski. Meanwhile, the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan campaign-finance watchdog group, lists Mr. Murtha as the top recipient of defense industry dollars in the current 2006 election cycle.

Almost sounds like there could be a pattern here...

...read complete post at Dad29

Posted by from the blogosphere at 09:32 PM | Permalink

Posted at The_City_Troll:

I did a post when Murtha first started his public Campaign Against our troops last year that it was to cover his Defence Contract ethics violations. A YEAR later burried on an Editorial page the MSM finaly starts to mention it. Back then all they cared about was the ethics of Tom Delay "Evil Republican" Lets also not forget that federal prosecutors designated him an unindicted co-conspirator in the Abscam investigation 26 years ago. The other seven congressional targets took cash and were convicted in federal court. The videotape showed Murtha declining to take cash but expressing interest in further negotiations, while bragging about his political influence. The House Ethics Committee exonerated Murtha of misconduct charges by a largely party-line vote, after which the committee's special counsel resigned in protest.

TODAY'S EDITORIAL

June 21, 2006

Rep. John Murtha is thinking big thoughts. Since coming out for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq last year, he has accused Marines of murder "in cold blood" before a preliminary investigation is even complete; accused the military of a cover up over the same incident; declared his candidacy for the House majority leadership post; and, most recently, refined his cut-and-run strategy in Iraq to mean "redeployment" to Okinawa, Japan. That's quite a splash for such a veteran congressman, who a year ago had zero name recognition outside Washington. That he's made a name for himself now by slandering our troops and their mission deserves a brief recital of some other activities associated with Mr. Murtha. Last June, the Los Angeles Times reported how the ranking member on the defense appropriations subcommittee has a brother, Robert Murtha, whose lobbying firm represents 10 companies that received more than $20 million from last year's defense spending bill. "Clients of the lobbying firm KSA Consulting -- whose top officials also include former congressional aide Carmen V. Scialabba, who worked for Rep. Murtha as a congressional aide for 27 years -- received a total of $20.8 million from the bill," the L.A. Times reported. In early 2004, according to Roll Call, Mr. Murtha "reportedly leaned on U.S. Navy officials to sign a contract to transfer the Hunters Point Shipyard to the city of San Francisco." Laurence Pelosi, nephew of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, at the time was an executive of the company which owned the rights to the land. The same article also reported how Mr. Murtha has been behind millions of dollars worth of earmarks in defense appropriations bills that went to companies owned by the children of fellow Pennsylvania Democrat, Rep. Paul Kanjorski. Meanwhile, the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan campaign-finance watchdog group, lists Mr. Murtha as the top recipient of defense industry dollars in the current 2006 election cycle. As Rep. Joe Wilson, South Carolina Republican, has said, "If there is a potential pattern where Congressman Murtha has helped other Democrats secure appropriations that also benefited relatives of those members, I believe this would be something that merits further review by the ethics committee." It's odd that the media, which has been fairly unbiased in going after corrupt politicians recently, has gone silent on Mr. Murtha's questionable actions. Or maybe it isn't. Since December, Mr. Murtha has become the darling of the antiwar crowd, and, as we've seen with other such darlings, scrutinizing their behavior is considered disrespectful. But as we're on the subject, few might recall that after the massive 1980 Abscam scandal, Mr. Murtha was named by the FBI as an "unindicted co-conspirator." Maybe the next time the new Jack Murtha thinks up another big idea someone can ask him about the old Jack Murtha.

Murtha

...read complete post at The_City_Troll

Posted by from the blogosphere at 08:48 PM | Permalink

Posted at Democracy Market:


Virginia's 8th Congressional District is currently occupied by Jim Moran. Apparently Moran has a lengthy history of questionable ethical dealings. Such as when he was forced to resign from the Alexandria City Council because of ethical problems. Of course, this made him well-suited for Congress.
Moran has recently bragged that when he becomes chairman of appropriations, he's going to earmark the sh** out of the appropriations bill. I'm not kidding. He actually said that. Points for candor, I guess.
At any rate, Winds of Change has compiled some of Moran's recent political lowlights. Check it out. The most egregious -- he sponsored a bankruptcy bill the same year he took $400,000 from MBNA.
(As an aside, Moran was my representative for about 3 months while we occupied a condo in Tyson's Corner. Now, I'm safely ensconced in Tom Davis' 11th...purple territory if there ever was such a thing.)

Here is a Post article on the politics of the eighth district. In short, despite facing a challenge from a two time war veteran, Moran is sitting just fine. Ah, the power of incumbency. Makes one yearn for term limits...
UPDATE: Check out this site for some GREAT Moran quotes. Unbelievable. It's well worth a read.


...read complete post at Democracy Market

Posted by from the blogosphere at 06:36 PM | Permalink

Posted at THE RIGHT SCALE:

The 'Pay-As-You-Go' Ruse

WSJ
Democrats in Congress unveiled their 2006 campaign agenda last week, laying claim to the mantle of "fiscal responsibility." The GOP's spendthrifts have handed them this political opening, which makes it all the more disappointing that Democrats are falling back on an old confidence trick.
Their ruse goes by the name of "pay-as-you-go" budgeting, which has the political virtue of sounding as if spending won't be able to exceed revenue. Their Web site, HouseDemocrats.gov, claims that pay-as-you-go policy "means that spending increases, as well as tax cuts, need to be offset by cuts in other areas -- like fewer corporate tax breaks."
A three-card monte dealer in Times Square couldn't have said it better. Paygo rules, to use the Beltway argot, were in place from 1990 until they expired in 2002, so we know how they work. And in practice all they really do is constrain tax cuts, not new spending.
That's because paygo rules apply only to new or expanded entitlement programs, not to those that already exist and grow automatically with user demand. Thus spending for Medicare, growing this year at an astounding 15% annual rate, would continue to run on autopilot. Ditto for Medicaid. So-called "discretionary" programs (education, Defense) that Congress approves each year are also exempt. Democrats somehow forget to disclose that those notorious "earmarks" stuffed into spending bills are also exempt from paygo.
The real game here is to make tax cutting all but impossible. Under paygo, tax cuts must be offset with either other tax increases or entitlement cuts. This usually means pitting tax cuts against cuts in the likes of Medicare, which is a very hard political sale. Paygo rules are one reason the 2001 tax cut was so paltry and phased-in and thus economically ineffective. Had paygo still been in force, the 2003 tax cuts that have done so much to spur growth and increase federal revenues would never have passed.
Another myth is that paygo was crucial to eliminating the budget deficit during the Clinton years. In fact, deficits remained high until the GOP took Congress in 1994 and, for a rare couple of years, actually reduced the growth rate of spending. Defense spending also fell by a full two-percentage-points of GDP during the 1990s. Paygo did little to restrain the appetite for new entitlements, as Democrats began their push for the Medicare prescription drug benefit long before the 2000 election.
The House Democratic agenda promises "a new direction for America." But when it comes to paygo and fiscal policy, the only change is their political marketing.


...read complete post at THE RIGHT SCALE

Posted by from the blogosphere at 03:07 PM | Permalink

Posted at AfterDowningStreet.org | Impeach Bush and Cheney Now!:

By Kim Zetter, http://www.salon.com

Salon exclusive: Two former AT&T employees say the telecom giant has maintained a secret, highly secure room in St. Louis since 2002. Intelligence experts say it bears the earmarks of a National Security Agency operation.

In a pivotal network operations center in metropolitan St. Louis, AT&T has maintained a secret, highly secured room since 2002 where government work is being conducted, according to two former AT&T workers once employed at the center.

Posted by from the blogosphere at 02:32 PM | Permalink

Posted at The Shaun Kenney Website - ShaunKenney.com:


I've kinda been waiting for the right moment to comment on Rep. Jim Moran's decorous remarks concerning earmarks, and I might have found just the right meme:Moran, who's famously promised, "When I become chairman [of a House appropriations subcommittee], I'm going to earmark the s*** out of it," at a Jefferson-Jackson dinner in Arlington on June 9th, also has an interesting personal financial history, as Armed Liberal noted back in 2002, and helpfully reminds us with a compendium of Moran links at Winds of Change.
I get to see a new bit of Moran's handiwork every day as I walk to my Metro stop--Metro, of course, is the Washington area mass transit system, which includes buses and a subway system--thanks to a $1,672,000 earmark he secured......with picture goodness.
I used to work at DEA (just behind the old MCI buildings in the pics towards the Pentagon) and remembered the Pentagon City Metro stop to be pretty decent.
Guess it didn't meet everyone's tastes. Thanks to the Sunlight Foundation for just the right comment.


...read complete post at The Shaun Kenney Website - ShaunKenney.com

Posted by from the blogosphere at 12:59 PM | Permalink

Posted at Murtha Must Go!!:


Murtha's real agenda is now in the process of biting him in his "big, fat backside." From the WaTimes:

The real Jack Murtha

TODAY'S EDITORIAL
June 21, 2006

That's quite a splash for such a veteran congressman, who a year ago had zero name recognition outside Washington. That he's made a name for himself now by slandering our troops and their mission deserves a brief recital of some other activities associated with Mr. Murtha.

Last June, the Los Angeles Times reported how the ranking member on the defense appropriations subcommittee has a brother, Robert Murtha, whose lobbying firm represents 10 companies that received more than $20 million from last year's defense spending bill. "Clients of the lobbying firm KSA Consulting -- whose top officials also include former congressional aide Carmen V. Scialabba, who worked for Rep. Murtha as a congressional aide for 27 years -- received a total of $20.8 million from the bill," the L.A. Times reported.

In early 2004, according to Roll Call, Mr. Murtha "reportedly leaned on U.S. Navy officials to sign a contract to transfer the Hunters Point Shipyard to the city of San Francisco." Laurence Pelosi, nephew of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, at the time was an executive of the company which owned the rights to the land. The same article also reported how Mr. Murtha has been behind millions of dollars worth of earmarks in defense appropriations bills that went to companies owned by the children of fellow Pennsylvania Democrat, Rep. Paul Kanjorski. Meanwhile, the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan campaign-finance watchdog group, lists Mr. Murtha as the top recipient of defense industry dollars in the current 2006 election cycle.

As Rep. Joe Wilson, South Carolina Republican, has said, "If there is a potential pattern where Congressman Murtha has helped other Democrats secure appropriations that also benefited relatives of those members, I believe this would be something that merits further review by the ethics committee."
Note that Murtha Must Go! reported on this story two days ago... The editorial continues... It's odd that the media, which has been fairly unbiased in going after corrupt politicians recently, has gone silent on Mr. Murtha's questionable actions. Or maybe it isn't. Since December, Mr. Murtha has become the darling of the antiwar crowd, and, as we've seen with other such darlings, scrutinizing their behavior is considered disrespectful. But as we're on the subject, few might recall that after the massive 1980 Abscam scandal, Mr. Murtha was named by the FBI as an "unindicted co-conspirator."

I guess this leopard is having some difficulty with changing his spots...
(bumped)
***UPDATE****Reader Reliapundit from Astute Blogger posted on this back on November 20, 2005! He's also happily joined our MMG blogroll!
Welcome aboard, sir!


...read complete post at Murtha Must Go!!

Posted by from the blogosphere at 12:08 PM | Permalink

Posted at Murtha Must Go!!:


As I have mentioned before, one of John Murtha's perennial surrender monkey chants regarding the war in Iraq is that it is costing us too much money.
But is John Murtha really the guardian of taxpayer money that he claims to be? It would appear to the contrary. In addition to the questionable cronyism and financial dealings of Murtha mentioned here, Murtha appears to find himself embroiled in a controversy a continent away from Pennsylvania:

Jerry Lewis is a man embattled.

In nearly 40 years of public service, he has risen from humble roots on the school board in San Bernardino to become one of the most powerful members of the House of Representatives - chairman of the Appropriations Committee, which oversees nearly $900 billion in federal funding.

The Redlands Republican touts his successes in developing federal clean air standards, crafting crime and drug legislation and securing emergency funding for disaster relief for California.

Closer to home, he counts the establishment of a high-tech cancer center at Loma Linda University Medical Center, the expansion of Ontario International Airport and the ongoing redevelopment of the former Norton Air Force Base as key achievements.

Now he is in trouble. In recent weeks, he has emerged at the center of a Department of Justice investigation that has already banished one congressman to prison for accepting $2.4 million in bribes.

The Justice Department and the FBI are investigating his relationship with powerful Washington lobbyist Bill Lowery, a former congressman and longtime friend of Lewis'.

Okay, so a Republican Congressman in California seems to have gotten his hand caught in the cookie jar... but here's where it gets interesting..

The investigation into Lewis and Lowery stems from a federal probe of former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-Escondido, who was sentenced to eight years in prison in November after admitting he accepted more than $2.4 million in bribes from businessmen seeking federal contracts.

Brent Wilkes, an unindicted co-conspirator in the Cunningham case, was a client of Lowery's firm and a contributor to Lewis' campaign.

Wilkes also worked for a former defense contractor who told NBC News last week that he had been interviewed by federal investigators and that he told them Lewis had asked him to hire Lowery's firm and give stock options to Lowery under a false name when the contractor was seeking a federal contract to digitize documents in 1993.

Tom Casey, who owned the now-defunct Audre Recognition Systems Inc., claimed that Lewis aide Letitia White, who is now a partner in Lowery's firm, allowed him to write the text of an appropriation earmark.

In a television interview, Casey acknowledged he had no proof Lewis did anything illegal and said he never issued the stock options.

Dirk Holland, a former employee of Casey's, said last week that Casey had asked employees to make contributions to elected officials and later reimbursed them.

"If I was the federal government, I'd be investigating him," Holland said of Casey last week. "I worked with him six years. He used to encourage employees to make campaign contributions, and the company refunded them. That's illegal."

Casey could not be reached for comment for this story.

Campaign contributions from Casey and his associates at Audre Inc. to members of the Defense Appropriations subcommittee included $5,000 to Lewis in 1993-94 and $4,000 to Rep. John P. Murtha, D-Pa., the panel's chairman at the time.

Another "You grease my palm and I'll grease yours" deal? For a man who complains that our grandkids will be picking up the tab for the Iraq war, Murtha can be rather cavalier about brokering and/or being a partner to "sweetheart deals" that result in at best financial or political gain for Murtha and/or his cronies; and at worst, just a downright waste of his and our grandkids' taxpayer dollars.

...read complete post at Murtha Must Go!!

Posted by from the blogosphere at 11:12 AM | Permalink

Posted at Irish Pennants:

about Jack Murtha:

Last June, the Los Angeles Times reported how the ranking member on the defense appropriations subcommittee has a brother, Robert Murtha, whose lobbying firm represents 10 companies that received more than $20 million from last year's defense spending bill. "Clients of the lobbying firm KSA Consulting -- whose top officials also include former congressional aide Carmen V. Scialabba, who worked for Rep. Murtha as a congressional aide for 27 years -- received a total of $20.8 million from the bill," the L.A. Times reported.

In early 2004, according to Roll Call, Mr. Murtha "reportedly leaned on U.S. Navy officials to sign a contract to transfer the Hunters Point Shipyard to the city of San Francisco." Laurence Pelosi, nephew of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, at the time was an executive of the company which owned the rights to the land. The same article also reported how Mr. Murtha has been behind millions of dollars worth of earmarks in defense appropriations bills that went to companies owned by the children of fellow Pennsylvania Democrat, Rep. Paul Kanjorski. Meanwhile, the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan campaign-finance watchdog group, lists Mr. Murtha as the top recipient of defense industry dollars in the current 2006 election cycle.

--snip--

It's odd that the media, which has been fairly unbiased in going after corrupt politicians recently, has gone silent on Mr. Murtha's questionable actions. Or maybe it isn't. Since December, Mr. Murtha has become the darling of the antiwar crowd, and, as we've seen with other such darlings, scrutinizing their behavior is considered disrespectful. But as we're on the subject, few might recall that after the massive 1980 Abscam scandal, Mr. Murtha was named by the FBI as an "unindicted co-conspirator."

Meanwhile, the AP's Kimberly Heferling does her best to prop him up.

Posted by from the blogosphere at 11:11 AM | Permalink

Posted at New Wars:


This is what the Washington Times is reporting:

Last June, the Los Angeles Times reported how the ranking member on the defense appropriations subcommittee has a brother, Robert Murtha, whose lobbying firm represents 10 companies that received more than $20 million from last year's defense spending bill. "Clients of the lobbying firm KSA Consulting -- whose top officials also include former congressional aide Carmen V. Scialabba, who worked for Rep. Murtha as a congressional aide for 27 years -- received a total of $20.8 million from the bill," the L.A. Times reported.

In early 2004, according to Roll Call, Mr. Murtha "reportedly leaned on U.S. Navy officials to sign a contract to transfer the Hunters Point Shipyard to the city of San Francisco." Laurence Pelosi, nephew of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, at the time was an executive of the company which owned the rights to the land. The same article also reported how Mr. Murtha has been behind millions of dollars worth of earmarks in defense appropriations bills that went to companies owned by the children of fellow Pennsylvania Democrat, Rep. Paul Kanjorski. Meanwhile, the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan campaign-finance watchdog group, lists Mr. Murtha as the top recipient of defense industry dollars in the current 2006 election cycle.

Seems like the only thing Cut-n-run Jack likes about our military is what he and his friends get out of it, and I don't mean duty and honor. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


...read complete post at New Wars

Posted by from the blogosphere at 10:03 AM | Permalink

Posted at Burn The Liberals:

Salon has added another chapter to Government spying on Americans, it seems.

June 21, 2006 | In a pivotal network operations center in metropolitan St. Louis, AT&T has maintained a secret, highly secured room since 2002 where government work is being conducted, according to two former AT&T workers once employed at the center.

In interviews with Salon, the former AT&T workers said that only government officials or AT&T employees with top-secret security clearance are admitted to the room, located inside AT&T's facility in Bridgeton. The room's tight security includes a biometric "mantrap" or highly sophisticated double door, secured with retinal and fingerprint scanners. The former workers say company supervisors told them that employees working inside the room were "monitoring network traffic" and that the room was being used by "a government agency."

The details provided by the two former workers about the Bridgeton room bear the distinctive earmarks of an operation run by the National Security Agency, according to two intelligence experts with extensive knowledge of the NSA and its operations. In addition to the room's high-tech security, those intelligence experts told Salon, the exhaustive vetting process AT&T workers were put through before being granted top-secret security clearance points to the NSA, an agency known as much for its intense secrecy as its technological sophistication.

"It was very hush-hush," said one of the former AT&T workers. "We were told there was going to be some government personnel working in that room. We were told, 'Do not try to speak to them. Do not hamper their work. Do not impede anything that they're doing.'"

The importance of the Bridgeton facility is its role in managing the "common backbone" for all of AT&T's Internet operations. According to one of the former workers, Bridgeton serves as the technical command center from which the company manages all the routers and circuits carrying the company's domestic and international Internet traffic. Therefore, Bridgeton could be instrumental for conducting surveillance or collecting data.

If the NSA is using the secret room, it would appear to bolster recent allegations that the agency has been conducting broad and possibly illegal domestic surveillance and data collection operations authorized by the Bush administration after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. AT&T's Bridgeton location would give the NSA potential access to an enormous amount of Internet data -- currently, the telecom giant controls approximately one-third of all bandwidth carrying Internet traffic to homes and businesses across the United States.

The nature of the government operation using the Bridgeton room remains unknown, and could be legal. Aside from surveillance or data collection, the room could conceivably house a federal law enforcement operation, a classified research project, or some other unknown government operation.

The former workers, both of whom were approached by and spoke separately to Salon, asked to remain anonymous because they still work in the telecommunications industry. They both left the company in good standing. Neither worked inside the secured room or has access to classified information. One worked in AT&T's broadband division until 2003. The other asked to be identified only as a network technician, and worked at Bridgeton for about three years.

This is all so entirely creepy, to me. Top secret government rooms inside of my ISP are not something that makes me, like, run through a field of dandelions, dancing.

We need to keep these stories coming. Silence means this administration has won.

Other Bloggers: Fired Up! Missouri, Suburban Guerilla, The Blogverse.com

Tags:NSA Wiretapping Bush AT&T Fuck You Telecom Whores

...read complete post at Burn The Liberals

Posted by from the blogosphere at 08:40 AM | Permalink

Posted at PrairiePundit:

Washington Times:

...
Last June, the Los Angeles Times reported how the ranking member on the defense appropriations subcommittee has a brother, Robert Murtha, whose lobbying firm represents 10 companies that received more than $20 million from last year's defense spending bill. "Clients of the lobbying firm KSA Consulting -- whose top officials also include former congressional aide Carmen V. Scialabba, who worked for Rep. Murtha as a congressional aide for 27 years -- received a total of $20.8 million from the bill," the L.A. Times reported. In early 2004, according to Roll Call, Mr. Murtha "reportedly leaned on U.S. Navy officials to sign a contract to transfer the Hunters Point Shipyard to the city of San Francisco." Laurence Pelosi, nephew of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, at the time was an executive of the company which owned the rights to the land. The same article also reported how Mr. Murtha has been behind millions of dollars worth of earmarks in defense appropriations bills that went to companies owned by the children of fellow Pennsylvania Democrat, Rep. Paul Kanjorski. Meanwhile, the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan campaign-finance watchdog group, lists Mr. Murtha as the top recipient of defense industry dollars in the current 2006 election cycle. As Rep. Joe Wilson, South Carolina Republican, has said, "If there is a potential pattern where Congressman Murtha has helped other Democrats secure appropriations that also benefited relatives of those members, I believe this would be something that merits further review by the ethics committee." It's odd that the media, which has been fairly unbiased in going after corrupt politicians recently, has gone silent on Mr. Murtha's questionable actions. Or maybe it isn't. Since December, Mr. Murtha has become the darling of the antiwar crowd, and, as we've seen with other such darlings, scrutinizing their behavior is considered disrespectful. But as we're on the subject, few might recall that after the massive 1980 Abscam scandal, Mr. Murtha was named by the FBI as an "unindicted co-conspirator."
...
There is something unseemly about people who want us to lose the war diverting defense expenditures to their friends and relatives. Porking is bad enough, but when an anti war puke does it it just reeks. By diverting funds from the war effort for the profit of others, it just brings a whole new meaning to war profiteers. It is one thing to get a little frisky in trying to win. It is something else entirely when your chief poltical goal is to lose the war. It is tainted money twice over.


...read complete post at PrairiePundit

Posted by from the blogosphere at 08:13 AM | Permalink

Posted at Earmarks in Early Modern Culture:

This is a visualisation of the structure of Earmarks in Early Modern Culture. It is not a network analysis — it shows the tags used in the site’s html structure. An explanation of the different colours used can be found below the picture.
The graph-applet is an invention of the Swiss blog aharef. You can [...]]]>

...read complete post at Earmarks in Early Modern Culture

Posted by from the blogosphere at 07:54 AM | Permalink

Posted at Earmarks in Early Modern Culture:

Since I hope to put the final touches to my PhD thesis this summer, I was happy to find that Mary McKinney’s Monday Motivator this week focuses on the subject of finishing. The academic coach advises to take projects one step at a time:
You’ll find that finishing a task creates a burst of energy. When [...]]]>

...read complete post at Earmarks in Early Modern Culture

Posted by from the blogosphere at 03:17 AM | Permalink

Posted at Slacker Nation:

... and raises for poor performance.

Here are the two gripes I have for today, both from CCAGW;

1) "The House voted 249 to 167 to reject a procedural attempt to get a direct vote on pay, which is scheduled for an automatic 2 percent increase. Unless changed by the Senate, rank-and-file members of Congress will make $168,500 starting in January 2007."

Is it me, or is that a lot of money to pay people that have all the built-in perks that come with government office? I think Congress and the Senate should get paid the average American income. If the average is $35,000, then that is what they get. If they are doing a good job and raise the average income of Americans then they get the same raise too. I'd give the President the same deal plus 20% for dealing with his main occupation: scapegoat. They are public servants, not royalty and should be paid like it.

For those that think that's not enough incentive; just think how much more they could make after leaving office on book deals and lecturing if they actually accomplished something worthwhile when in office. It would attract people that were not initially money-driven and probably bring more motivated people into the government. The goal would be to get in, make a difference, and get back out to reap the rewards of service. It would also, most likely, decrease the attraction of becoming a career politician; the human equivalent of a leech, by removing a good portion of that comfortably fat salary. There is something to be said for paying ones dues and going on to to greener pastures.

2) We once had a Presidential Line Item Veto and the Supreme Court Shot it down in 1998. That law, which President Bill Clinton used to veto 82 items, saved $2 billion over five years.

"But there is still hope while the Fellowship remains..."

Line Item Veto is back up for a vote. Our government NEEDS this. There are billions of dollars every year squandered on self-serving pet projects of government officials and lobbyists. BILLIONS! Line Item Veto could help stem the tide of "Bridges to Nowhere", Indoor Rainforests, and slow the waste caused by the likes of Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W. Va.), a career politician who funnels vast sums of Federal money into his own state. West Virginia has ranked in the top four states for pork per capita and, despite the large amount of money poured into the state, has the third lowest personal income per capita. So much for throwing money at people and government institutions to alleviate poverty.

CAGW states, "Sen. Byrd often cites West Virginia’s poor economy to justify his pork. The state now has the third-lowest personal income per capita in the country. Evidently, decades of raiding the federal treasury has helped Sen. Byrd get re-elected but has failed to improve the lot of West Virginians. "

Billion of dollars could be saved, special interests and lobbyists stymied, and earmarks unmarked. Please go here Support the Line-Item Veto Act! and send a letter to your Representatives to remind them how important it is to be frugal and how much they need your vote.

Links;

CCAGW Slams Congressional Pay Raise

Help Enact The Legislative Line-Item Veto Act of 2006!

The "Porker of the Month" Hall of Shame

Weird

...read complete post at Slacker Nation

Posted by from the blogosphere at 01:23 AM | Permalink

Posted at CHATTER:

The story in Salon, an online magazine, says the operation in Bridgeton resides within a secure room inside AT&T's network operations center. Speculation: It's an NSA sniffing post used for domestic surveillance.

From the story:In interviews with Salon, the former AT&T workers said that only government officials or AT&T employees with top-secret security clearance are admitted to the room, located inside AT&T's facility in Bridgeton. The room's tight security includes a biometric "mantrap" or highly sophisticated double door, secured with retinal and fingerprint scanners. The former workers say company supervisors told them that employees working inside the room were "monitoring network traffic" and that the room was being used by "a government agency."

The details provided by the two former workers about the Bridgeton room bear the distinctive earmarks of an operation run by the National Security Agency, according to two intelligence experts with extensive knowledge of the NSA and its operations. In addition to the room's high-tech security, those intelligence experts told Salon, the exhaustive vetting process AT&T workers were put through before being granted top-secret security clearance points to the NSA, an agency known as much for its intense secrecy as its technological sophistication.The story is filled with no-comment comments, and relies almost exclusively on two unnamed former AT&T workers. Just because they're anonymous doesn't make them unreliable. But more reporting needs to be done to determine if this is a federal probe by another acronym agency, or the real NSA deal.

...read complete post at CHATTER

Posted by from the blogosphere at 12:33 AM | Permalink

Posted at Representative Jack Kingston:

CLICK ON THE PICTURE BELOW TO WATCH THIS FLOOR SPEECH

Tonight on the floor, U.S. Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) is once again bringing a number of amendments to the floor which would remove certain “earmarks” from the Defense Appropriations Bill.
Congressman Kingston, both a fiscal conservative and an appropriator, weighs in on the debate and asks Rep. [...]]]>

...read complete post at Representative Jack Kingston

Posted by from the blogosphere at 08:12 PM | Permalink

Posted at The Cranky Insomniac:

If you've got some free time, why not help the Sunlight Foundation investigate Congress?Last week at Sunlight, we exposed House Speaker Dennis Hastert's use of a secret, undisclosed trust to make a $2 million profit selling land located near the proposed route of the Prairie Parkway, a project Hastert has backed with $207 million in earmarks. There are still 539 congress members and delegates whose disclosure forms haven't been scrutinized.[snip]The House Ethics Manual states, "The objectives of financial disclosure are to inform the public about the financial interests of government officials in order to increase public confidence in the integrity of government and to deter potential conflicts of interest." (The Senate Ethics Manual is similar). On June 14, members of Congerss made public those disclosures. As a public service, the Web site PoliticalMoneyLine.com has put them online. The House disclosure forms start here -- and the Senate (all on one page) is here. Go to the site, find your member, download the form, and spend a little time learning about your member's financial interests. Are there entries you don't understand? Are there private companies, partnerships, or trusts for which no public information is available? Are investments in land identified in ways that you can find them on a map? Inform yourself, and let me know what you find, either by email or by posting information online on your site (and sending us a link) or on ours. Let's make sure that we deter potential conflicts of interest by reading their disclosure forms, and making sure they know we're watching.Check out the Sunlight Foundation's site (linked to above) for more info. Be a patriot: help scare the crap out of your dishonest, pork-loving, bribe- and/or unethical favor-taking Senators and Representatives.Remember, sunlight kills soulless bloodsucking creatures of the night, so there's no reason it shouldn't work on members of Congress.(Via Instapundit.)Taggers: Sunlight Foundation, Financial Disclosure Forms, Congress, Cranky, Cranky Insomniac

...read complete post at The Cranky Insomniac

Posted by from the blogosphere at 05:35 PM | Permalink

Posted at HUMAN EVENTS ONLINE - Conservative News, Views & Books:

The Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006 (H.R. 4890), is scheduled for a House vote Thursday afternoon. As has been written previously on this blog, Rep. Paul Ryan (R.-Wis.) is the brains behind the bill. Assailed during the Clinton Administration as unconstitutional, the bill's latest revision preserves constitutionality by maintaining the separation of powers between Congress and the Oval Office. Bi-partisan support is expected but much needs to be done before Thursday's vote. When confronted, most congressmen will struggle to defend a "no" vote for such obviously needed legislation. So call them up!

Also, Rep. Jeb Hensarling (Tex.), chairman of the Republican Study Committee’s Budget and Spending Taskforce, posted an op-ed on Redstate.com today, voicing his support of the bill. Here's an excerpt:

The bill would provide the President with a budget savings tool similar to that which almost every governor in the nation currently possesses. It enables the President to identify questionable and wasteful earmark projects that are slipped into spending bills so that Congress can vote separately on their merits.

Since 1991, federal spending on special interest projects has increased by 900%. Much of the questionable spending is quietly inserted into large conference reports, and it becomes near impossible to remove them through the amendment process. At a time of both historic national debt and record high tax revenues, it doesn't seem too much to ask that legislators show more accountability on how the people's money is spent.

Unlike the 1996 Line Item Veto, this bill gives Congress the final say on any spending cancellations. It has been reviewed and modified to ensure that it meets the guidelines set by our Constitution.

Earlier in the week, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R.-Tenn.) wrote an op-ed for NRO backing the veto legislation and plugging his bill slated for the Senate (hat tip to Tim Chapman). The Senate probably won't see the bill for another month (so we will pester senators later) but here's a bit of what Frist had to say:

The president must have this authority for one simple reason: Under our current budget process, members of Congress can often slip pet programs or projects into massive appropriations bills that fund necessary, ongoing government operations. Few members of Congress, after all, would oppose the Department of the Interior’s nearly $10 billion budget because they don’t want to spend $350,000 for flower baskets in Chicago or stand against the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s almost $35 billion budget to deny a $550,000 grant to a glass museum in Tacoma, Washington. Under current law, however, most members have no real choice.

Partly as a result, Congress has a hard time eliminating unnecessary spending. The Office of Management and Budget, indeed, reports that over a quarter of all federal programs either do not work or can’t show any evidence that they do. Another 28 percent receive “adequate” ratings (indicating problems) while a mere 15 percent set and achieve the ambitious goals needed to earn OMB’s highest rating.

A bill that I’ve introduced along with Senators John McCain (R., Ariz.), John Kerry (D., Mass.), and 25 others, would begin to remedy this situation. Under the proposal, the president could periodically send Congress lists of projects, activities, and narrow tax benefits he feels don’t serve the national interest. After the president submits it, both houses of Congress would have to vote the package as a whole.

...read complete post at HUMAN EVENTS ONLINE - Conservative News, Views & Books

Posted by from the blogosphere at 04:47 PM | Permalink

Glenn Reynolds

...read complete post at Instapundit.com

Posted by at 04:25 PM | Permalink

Posted at In the Shadow of Mt. Hollywood:

At Last! The Emperor Wears A Cheap Hairpiece!
The Great Man is not a happy camper! A careful, non-fawning (though much belated) review of An Army of Davids by Christine Rosen in The New Republic is, by Glenn’s lights, a “hatchet job”.

[I]t's a bit hard to discern a storyline beyond her dislike of InstaPundit, me, and the prospect -- which I don't actually advance in the book, and have quite explicitly disclaimed on InstaPundit -- that professional journalists and pundits will be replaced by amateurs.

But on page 95 (I finally got a copy – a defective one, cheapest I could find) of An Army of Davids, our boy says

I don’t think that weblogs and flash media will replace Big Media any time soon. But I keep seeing evidence that they’re doing a better and better job of supplementing, and challenging, Big Media coverage. . . . Just another thing for the Old Media guys to worry about.

Glenn’s basically your normal narcissistic con artist, never quite saying something, never quite not saying it, and complaining that people who try to nail him down don’t like him. (And of course, he can’t figure out why!)

Actually, Rosen’s observations on Reynolds’s essential airheadedness are spot-on and simply haven’t been pointed out in reviews or blog posts (other than mine) to date:

After linking to an article on congressional earmarks, he'll add, "Well, that's encouraging. Sheesh." Quod erat demonstrandum. Or he'll carp, "Nancy Pelosi, on the other hand, is just dumb"--a point that may be perfectly true but probably requires some explanation or proof beyond the simple assertion. In the end, this method provides the intellectual horsepower of, say, an Andy Rooney commentary. To wit, he wrote in December, "A battery recall on the XM portables. Is it just me, or are we seeing more battery recalls lately." Well, no need for The New York Times, then.

If, as Reynolds predicts, the rise of the blogosphere comes at the expense of older institutions like newspapers and magazines, then he will shed no tears. That's because his libertarianism makes him a fervent believer in the wisdom of markets. But, in the market of opinions, can you count on talent and insight to triumph? The case of Reynolds--"Heh," "Indeed"--would suggest that the market for opinion doesn't make its judgments based on logical coherence or intellectual honesty. Reynolds's terse, almost meaningless commentary may make him the reductio ad absurdum of the blogosphere's worst tendencies. But these tendencies happen to be its ubiquitous ones.

Well, in Glenn’s view, the market is sorta-kinda the hit count, it seems to me. And he gets the hits from uncritical visitors, and certainly from the kind who click by several dozen times a day. “Heh”, I suspect, is pretty much all they can take. And Glenn just can’t figure out why Christine Rosen doesn’t like him! This is a guy who's been waved through every one of life's little obstacles: rich kid from the right family in a small town, Yale, got laid a lot in the summers, clerked for the right judge, associate in the right law firm, tenure at UTK Law School -- the same place where he grew up as a rich kid! And finally, months after it appeared, a bad, though brutally honest, review of his silly book.

Narcissists, however, don't grow up or listen to feedback, so don't look for any constructive result from this experience. Still, it's good to see journalists finally showing some backbone and pointing out that blogging's highly overrated.

...read complete post at In the Shadow of Mt. Hollywood

Posted by from the blogosphere at 04:04 PM | Permalink

Posted at Murtha Must Go!!:

Murtha's frequent surrender-monkey complaints often center around the cost of the Iraq war REP. MURTHA: Well, “stay the course” is “stay and pay.” This is the thing that has worried me right along. We’re spending $8 billion dollars a month, $300 million dollars a day. And to give you some perspective of what that means, Gates said, “I’m going to quit the corporation, or I’m going to—less time with the corporation.” Well, you weigh $30 billion dollars. That’s four months of the cost of this war. This port security, if you want to spend more money, it’d would take 47 years the way we’re spending it. Education, the No Child Left Behind, a couple months of the war would pay for that. Whose going to, whose going to pay for this down the road? Our children and grandchildren are paying for this war. And then you have the, the, the emotional strain, the, the, the people who are being hurt....Sure is something how Murtha all of a sudden has the taxpayer's best interests in heart, when his past actions indicate otherwise:A similar bottom-line mentality, the "political bottom line," is also quite evident in the public sector. For example, when it comes to spending money, the U.S. Congress has no equal. Although much of this expenditure is for purposes of national concern, a sizable portion is devoted to pork-barreling. Pork-barreling refers to the practice whereby a senator or representative forces Congress to allocate monies to special projects that take place in his or her home district. In many cases, the projects have little value and represent a drain on the taxpayers. They do, however, create jobs--and political support--in the home district. This practice is common, because many members of Congress believe it will help them get votes in the next election.

In some more extreme--and definitely ethically questionable--situations, such actions are designed to reward some large-scale campaign contributors in the home district. A case in point is the Maxi Cube cargo handling system. Funds for testing the Maxi Cube cargo handling system were written into the fiscal 1989 defense budget during the final Senate-House Appropriations conference at the request of Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania. The $10 million item was specifically targeted for a Philadelphia businessman (and contributor to Murtha's campaign) who was to manufacture the truck in Murtha's home district. The only problem was that the U.S. Army had clearly said that it had "no known requirement" for the handler. In response, Murtha was reported to be "mad as hell" at the "nitpicking" by the army. He pushed ahead anyway and used his position on the Appropriations committee to freeze a series of military budgeting requests until he got his pet project approved.

And Murtha is not alone. Rep. Les Aspin of Wisconsin got the Defense Appropriations committee to include $249 million to continue making a certain ten-ton truck (in Wisconsin, naturally) that the army was trying to phase out. It, too, was unneeded, but Aspin wanted the project for his home district. Is this legal? Yes? Is it ethical? That depends upon your point of view (Morgan, 1989). Clearly, Murtha and Aspin thought it was appropriate, given the realities of today's private and public organizations.

“Rep. John Murtha’s (D-Pa) well-known ability to channel federal dollars to his southwestern Pennsylvania district has made him a hero at home but, ironically, is one factor keeping him out of the quiet race to succeed ailing Appropriations Chairman Bill Natcher (D-Ky), according to House sources.

“Of the approximately $4 billion in ‘directed spending’ contained in the $240 billion fiscal 1994 defense appropriations bill, more than $110 million is earmarked for projects in Murtha’s district.

“As a result, Members and top aides say, there is a feeling that an institution already suffering a public relations problem can not afford an Appropriations chairman portrayed by the press – fairly or not – as a leading pork-barrel politician.”

What were some of the earmarks identified by Jacoby?

“As chairman of the House Appropriations Defense subcommittee, Murtha last year helped produce a $240 billion spending bill that included $113 million for projects in his hometown of Johnstown.”

Dan Gordon, ProLogic’s President, said that a key factor in ProLogic’s “ability to grow” was opening offices in “areas that have historically been underserved by the technology industry.” My guess is that they have been thinking less about opening up new offices in neglected areas than they have about finding friends on the appropriations committees. In addition to their office at the Purdue Center, Gordon pointed to two other new facilities, one in Manassas, Virginia (represented by Representative Jim Moran) and the other in Uniontown, Pennsylvania (represented by Representative John Murtha). Like Visclosky, Moran and Murtha are key Democrats on the House defense appropriations subcommittee.

ProLogic has made large donations to both congressmen, and so has PMA. But the connections go even deeper: Melissa Koloszar, Moran’s former chief of staff, is now a lobbyist at PMA. Another firm lobbyist, Daniel Cunningham, who formerly worked for the Army, is extremely close to Murtha. According to Cunningham’s online bio, he “fostered an exceptional working relationship with Appropriations committees,” and according to my Hill source, Murtha even uses Cunningham as his unofficial driver. (Cunningham and Murtha’s office did not return phone calls.)

Posted by from the blogosphere at 03:26 PM | Permalink

Posted at HUMAN EVENTS ONLINE - Conservative News, Views & Books:

The U.S. House of Representatives began its debate this afternoon on the Department of Defense appropriations bill for fiscal year 2007 and fearless pork-buster Rep. Jeff Flake (R.-Ariz.) has drafted a number of amendments that would block egregious earmaks within the bill.

Here's a full list of these earmarks:

•$1,000,000 for the Institute for Exploration at Mystic Aquarium in New London, Connecticut

•$1,000,000 for the Jason Foundation in Ashburn, Virginia

•$6,300,000 for the Wind Demonstration Project

•$4,000,000 for the Center for Rotorcraft Innovation in Media, Pennsylvania

•$20,000,000 for the Leonard Wood Research Institute in Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri

•$2,500,000 for the Illinois Technology Transition Center

•$2,500,000 for the Northwest Manufacturing Initiative

•$4,000,000 for the Lewis Center for Education Research in Apple Valley, California

•$1,000,000 for the Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Program at Texas State
University, San Marcos, Texas

•$1,000,000 for the Northeast Regional Training Center for Homeland Defense at the Massachusetts Military Reservation, Otis ANGB, Massachusetts

(List provided by Flake's press office

Even if none of these amendments pass, Flake should be commended for the service he is doing all Americans in raising awareness and shedding sunlight on these wasteful government spending sprees that Congress continues to deliver.

And how in the world is giving $6.3 million to the "Wind Demonstration Project" going to help us defend our nation? Anyone?

...read complete post at HUMAN EVENTS ONLINE - Conservative News, Views & Books

Posted by from the blogosphere at 03:23 PM | Permalink

Glenn Reynolds

...read complete post at Instapundit.com

Posted by at 02:00 PM | Permalink

Posted at Nashvillesnews.net | Calibrating for hype:

I've been so busy talking about House Speaker Dennis Hastert's land deals, reading and working on replies to a ton of wonderful responses from citizen journalists (I kind of like "Citizen Muckraker" better, but that's just me) to our request for help in investigating Congress (about which more soon) that I've missed the party on Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va., who represents me in the House. Glenn Reynolds highlights a Washington Post piece (which ran in the Business Section, which was a little odd) about Moran's securing $37 million for a company that tried to develop magnetic technology that would make submarines less easily detected. In the end, the company tried to develop magnetic technology to make the small boats Navy SEALS use (which can be dangerous in rough seas) safer; instead, the Navy chose to buy better seats to keep the SEALS safe. Sounds almost like the company, an Alexandria, Va.-based firm called Vibration & Sound Solutions Ltd., had a solution in search of a problem. The company's president and his wife donated $17,000 to Moran.read more


...read complete post at Nashvillesnews.net | Calibrating for hype

Posted by from the blogosphere at 01:39 PM | Permalink

Posted at VOLuntarilyConservative:

(Candidate responses are in bold.)

Basic Information:

Name: Vance W. Cheek, Jr.
Age: 38
Occupation: Attorney, retired Commissioner of the Tennessee Claims Commission (judge), former Mayor of Johnson City, Tennessee
Family: Wife, Jody W. Cheek (Married 9 years in August), Daughter, Catie V. Cheek (5 ¾ years. She insists on the ¾)
Education: Diploma, 1983, Science Hill High School, Johnson City, TN; B. S., 1987, East Tennessee State University, Johnson City, TN; J. D., 1990, University of Tennessee College of Law, Knoxville, TN.

Getting to Know You:

Favorite Book:
To Kill a Mocking Bird, (1960). Harper Lee
Favorite Movie:
The Godfather (1972)
Favorite TV Show: The Andy Griffith Show (1960-1968)
Favorite Restaurant: Jody’s Kitchen (we’re always eating out so it’s a treat to stay home.)
Favorite Website: Espn.com
Favorite Leisure Activity: Sport; Cinema; Music (Guitar)
Favorite Vacation Spot: Walt Disney World
3 Favorite Songs:
(1) The Thrill is Gone, B. B. King;

(2) Since I’ve Been Lovin’ You, Led Zeppelin;

(3) Smooth, Carlos Santana
3 Most Admired People:
(1) My Parents, collectively;

(2) Ronald Reagan;(3) Abraham Lincoln.

Questions:

1) National Spending - The Republican-led Congress has done little to curtail spending since the GOP last came into power in 2003. The national debt is approaching $8,500,000,000,000.00 according to Congressional Budget Office estimates. Conservatives both in D.C. and beyond the Beltway have put forth possible solutions, from targeting earmarks (through Senator Coburn's "Pork Busters" program) to altering the budget cycle (as with Ed Bryant's calls for a biennial budget). This sparks two questions:
a) How do you propose that Congressional spending be brought under control so that present and future generations are not saddled with extreme debts?

I will fight relentlessly for a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution. Additionally, I will fight for a “pork busting” Line Item Veto Amendment, giving the President authority to trim the fat from the bills passed by Congress.
Any surplus derived from the responsible spending of taxpayers money would be directed to the national debt at each budget cycle whether it is an annual or biennial budget. I support the call for a biennial budget as such a process encourages longer term planning than the system currently in place.

b) Is your personal philosophy regarding the budget more along the lines of a traditional conservative or like that of former Congressman Jimmy Quillen, a 1st District hero who brought many federal dollars to East Tennessee that have assisted so many citizens of the 1st District?

There is a true difference between community investments and “pork”. The First District should benefit from federal funds that are designed to stimulate economic growth, better the quality of life for its citizens, keep persons and property safe and offer the best life possible for our children. I do not consider such funding “pork”; rather, I consider such programs to be investments because the final result is to make the First District a thriving, productive American community with a broad tax base. I consider “pork” to be the proverbial bridges to nowhere that are designed to repay political favors from special interests. As Congressman, I will work tirelessly to find investment opportunities for the First District. Given my qualifications and my experience in local and state government, I believe I am the most qualified candidate to bring these investment opportunities home.

2) Illegal Immigration - This is an issue that has garnered more attention as 2006 has progressed, with strong feelings lying on both sides of the debate. Everything from amnesty to shooting illegal aliens trying to cross over our borders has been put on the table. What specific measures would you support in the Congress to deal with this problem?

I do not support granting amnesty to illegal aliens. I support the President’s plan to use the National Guard to support the Boarder Patrol in their never-ending battle to protect America’s southern boarder. Having a brother-in-law serve on the Boarder Patrol for 4 years, I have heard first hand the dangers and challenges these brave men and women face. As Congressman, I will fight for appropriations to secure all of America’s boarders.
Specifically, I believe the Nation’s northern boarder is nearing an emergency state as well. National security is at risk any time a seemingly harmless vehicle comes from Canada without proper inspection. America must be on watch of all her boarders in order to make her homeland truly secure.

3) Abortion - The right to life has remained one of the most divisive issues in American politics for several decades. What are your views on the abortion debate? Do you believe that the power to regulate abortion (either positively or negatively) lies with the states or with the federal government? If you are pro-life, do you believe that there should be any exceptions where abortion should be allowable?

I am a genuine supporter of the Right to Life movement based on my personal life story. I was born with a birth defect that caused my mother’s doctors to advise my parents to leave me in the hospital to live out my supposed short life. My parents were told not to name me, not to get attached to me and even not to try and hold me. Thankfully for me, my parents did hold me, did take me home and did give life a chance. I owe them everything.
I was raised that every life is precious no matter what one’s abilities may be. Everyone has something to offer the world, everyone has something to share. That is why my wife, Jody, and I decided to have a child. Despite knowing that a 50% chance existed that any child of mine would share my bone disease, we took a step of faith. That step of faith is now named Catie, a full-of-herself 6 year old, who is the light of our lives.

The Right to Life issue is a federal issue given the ruling in Roe v. Wade. I believe abortion should not be legal except in cases of rape, incest of the life of the mother. I support the overturning of Roe and the complete abolition of abortion on demand in this Country.

4) Military Intervention in the Middle East - President Bush has gone on the record as saying that American forces will remain in Iraq and Afghanistan until at least 2008. What are your views towards the current American foreign military involvement in the Middle East?

A statement that is not repeated enough is the following: America did not come to out enemies looking to start a war, our enemies came to America and started a war we much finish. I believe a military presence is necessary in the Middle East until reasonable stability can be achieved. Obviously, factions in the Middle East have been fighting since Biblical times; thus, our expectations for stability must be reasonable. That said, a withdrawal of troops at this time would create a huge void in the region. History reminds us that when voids are created, evil flocks to fill the void. We cannot have a repeat of Germany in the 1920’s. The United States must stay until the job is finished.

5) Energy Policy - Throughout the past several decades, America has drifted along without a sincere energy policy, resulting in others (whether sovereign states or corporations) dictating market forces regarding what we pay for energy and the sources of that energy (oil, coal, etc.). What would you add to a comprehensive national energy policy that would benefit the people of the 1st District?

As Congressman, I will fight forcefully for a comprehensive energy plan. Our country needs a comprehensive energy policy that forces the price of energy down by encouraging exploration, development and the study of alternative fuel sources. I consider the need for such a plan to be an issue of national security. With China, India and Vietnam coordinating energy creation hand-in-hand with economic growth, the United States can no longer sit idly by and wait for another generation to find our solution.
While the issue is quite complicated, there are four areas from which our next Congressman can begin: (1) Clean use of coal (the United States is sitting on approximately 200 years of coal reserves); (2) The United States must reutilize nuclear power; and, (3) Oil must be accessed responsibly without interference from special interests; and (4) alternative fuels such as ethanol as well as solar and hydroelectric power must be researched and developed at a more aggressive pace. Until such time as we implement a National Energy Policy, our addiction to foreign oil and energy sources will continue to handcuff the United State’s ability to compete in the global market.

6) Right to Bear Arms - Both the Federal and Tennessee Constitutions reflect strong language designed to protect the right to bear arms. What have you done personally to protect these rights, including passing knowledge to others or future generations?

As a gun owner, I am proud to support the Second Amendment. I do not believe the caliber of a weapon warrants its restriction. I support and encourage gun safety seminars; especially for our young men and women. Through learning how to respect and properly use a firearm, the youth of America can be better educated and thus safer. As Congressman, I will oppose legislation to ban the use of firearms and I will fight to protect each American’s right to bear arms.

7) Committee Assignments - Those who have served on Capitol Hill know that much of what you can accomplish depends on what committees or subcommittees to which you are assigned. What particular committee assignments would you push for if elected to Congress, and what would you hope to accomplish in those committees?

Firstly, I would ask to be placed on the Ways and Means Committee, knowing it would be a challenge for any freshman congressman to be so honored. However, given the cornerstone to my campaign message is to get government spending under control, I would be remiss if I did not aggressively seek such an assignment.
Secondly, as I have not been able to serve our Country through military service, I would ask to be placed on the House Armed Services Committee. Such would be my contribution to the protection of America. With a reserve division here in East Tennessee, I have been inspired to be the most supportive Congressman our military has ever known. Additionally, I would like to serve on the Veteran’s Affairs Committee to better assist those who have given so much for the sake of our freedom from the VA Hospital at Mountain Home, TN to the families and friends of POW/MIA’s who deserve a full, complete and accurate accounting of those left behind.

8) Goals and Terms - In thirty words or less, what do you hope to accomplish through your service to the 1st District? Also, do you pledge to term-limit yourself like Senators Bill Frist and Tom Coburn have done? If so, how many terms will you serve?

I will carry on the tradition of strong conservative voices that have echoed through Washington from East Tennessee thanks to great Congressman like B. Carroll Reece to Jimmy Quillen to Bill Jenkins. I will fight for East Tennessee values, the protection of our homeland and the strengthening of our military, economic and diplomatic positions in the ever-shrinking world.
Despite my age of 38, I have no desire to be a lifetime politician. If elected, I would desire to serve as long as I could be the most effective voice of the First District. I have no desire to use this office as a springboard of any kind. Election to the US Congress from the First District of Tennessee would be the greatest honor I could ever receive.

...read complete post at VOLuntarilyConservative

Posted by from the blogosphere at 08:06 AM | Permalink

Posted at The Stupid Shall Be Punished:

[Local Idaho politics warning!]I've been a Republican my whole life; I've never voted for a Democrat for President. I went door-to-door passing out campaign literature for a Republican Congressional candidate back in Nebraska in 1978. I wasn't active in politics during my 21+ years in the Navy, but always considered myself a Republican. Idaho Congressman Mike Simpson, however, apparently doesn't think that I am one.What did I do to make him mad? Well, I'm supporting Democrat Larry Grant in the Idaho 1st Congressional District race against Republican Bill Sali. I've blogged before about why I'm upset with the current crop of Congressional Republicans (of whom Mike Simpson is one), and also about why I like Larry Grant over Bill Sali. This isn't a decision I've reached lightly -- I've put a lot of thought and research into it. I'm probably one of the few people who has met and spoken to both Grant and Sali on the campaign trail this year. (I talked to Sali last week after the Flag Day rally at the Capitol that Alan at IdaBlue blogged about recently. He's very personable when you're talking to him one-on-one, and will be a tough campaigner.) Because I'm "leaving the reservation", so to speak, to vote for a fiscally conservative, socially moderate Democrat with a record of real-world business success, Congressman Simpson (and apparently the Party Chairman) don't want me, or others like me, in the Republican Party anymore:"I've heard some talk about Republicans for Grant," Simpson said. "There is no such thing as a Republican for Grant. They are Democrats."Party Chairman Kirk Sullivan reiterated the point — and anyone who differed kept quiet at the convention.I'll be honest -- this upsets me quite a bit. I feel I've done enough for my country to be accepted as a member of either one of the two main political parties, no matter who I happen to vote for in one election. And anyway -- who is Mike Simpson to throw me out of my own party? This is a guy who not only votes for every pork-laden budget bill that comes down the pike, he has the gall to actually defend earmarks as being required by the Constitution. I didn't realize that I had to believe that the Constitution stipulates that budget items be put into bills without a committee vote, frequently during late session conference committee sessions, in order to follow Simpson's brand of Republicanism. (Instapundit mentions today an earmark that needlessly took up a lot of the Submarine Force's time; more info is here.)In all seriousness, the Republican Party as represented by Mike Simpson and Bill Sali isn't one I recognize. Simpson especially seems interested in the federal government spending more and more money, and both are apparently obsessed with what people are doing in the privacy of their own homes -- I always thought Republicans stood for less government interference. (Simpson has quite a long screed about how he intends to protect us from another glimpse of Janet Jackson's breast.) While Simpson would have us believe that we have to vote for Sali in support of Republican unity, it's clear from Sali's actions that his concept of unity doesn't permit any deviation from his party line.My feeling is that it's the Idaho Republican Party that left me, not the other way around.

...read complete post at The Stupid Shall Be Punished

Posted by from the blogosphere at 01:39 AM | Permalink

Posted at National Debunker:

Denny Hastert is a real estate investment genius, turning a private real estate trust into a $1.5 million profit (and then some) in just seven months. Being Speaker of the House and arranging for a new highway to run less than three miles from his isolated parcel had nothing to it. Of course. How could one think otherwise? The Chicago Tribune documents the graft,How Hastert benefited from salePlanned highway could sweeten asset near PlanoBy James Kimberly and Andrew Zajac ... Published June 18, 2006The complex structure of a real estate transaction in Kendall County last December left House Speaker Dennis Hastert with a seven-figure profit and in prime position to reap further benefits as the exurban region west of Chicago continues its prairie-fire growth boosted by a Hastert-backed federally funded proposed highway.Instead of cash, Hastert (R-Ill.) took most of his share of the proceeds in land, some of it less than 2 miles from the parcels he and two partners in a land trust sold for nearly $5 million to a developer who plans to build more than 1,500 homes and commercial space on the property near Little Rock and Galena roads in Plano.Hastert received five-eighths of the proceeds of the sale, which worked out to a profit of more than $1.5 million for him on property that he and his partners accumulated in a little more than three years.Little Rock Trust No. 225All told, Hastert and his partners in Little Rock Trust No. 225 received property valued at $3.8million, plus cash, said Dallas Ingemunson, a partner in the trust and Hastert's personal attorney, as well as the Kendall County Republican chairman.Hastert's share of the proceeds includes a one-third interest in a 126-acre property on Miller Road, just south of the Robert Arthur Land Co.'s planned development, according to his congressional financial disclosure form released last week. The Little Rock land trust acquired the farm for $3.1million, Ingemunson said.Hastert also received 275 acres of property overlooking the Mississippi River in Eastman, Wis., for which he paid $756,000.The partners partially took payment in land because federal law allows capital gains taxes to be deferred when a business or investment property is swapped for another business or real estate.The partners are responsible for capital gains tax on the cash portion of the transaction, Ingemunson said.Thomas Klatt, the third partner in the Little Rock trust, said the group would like to immediately put the Miller Road farm up for sale but must hold on to it for a year under provisions of the tax code."It's not far from the action," Klatt said of the Miller Road farm. "That's how it works out here in the country. The place is booming."Tom Karpus, director of building and zoning for the City of Plano, said the growth in Kendall County is following Ogden Avenue, with developers moving west from Naperville to Aurora to Oswego to Yorkville and Plano."For the last six to seven years land values out here in this area have all gone through the roof," Karpus said.Last spring, the Census Bureau listed Kendall County as the second-fastest growing county in the U.S.Proposed Prairie ParkwayKarpus downplayed the impact of the proposed Prairie Parkway, which would run north and south through Kendall County, noting that property prices began rising well before the proposed highway became a serious planning issue. The proposed road is designed to connect Interstate Highways 80 and 88.Mandel Manion, who has sold real estate in the Plano area since 1991, said the market for farmland really took off in the last year and a half.Manion said farmers tell her that developers knock on their doors unsolicited and offer to buy their land for $35,000 to $40,000 an acre."Maybe the Prairie Parkway has something to do with it, I don't know," Manion said. "I would guess it probably doesn't hurt."Hastert's family paid $11,000 per acre in 2002 for some of the land he and his partners subsequently sold in December for $36,000 per acre. The speaker has long been a staunch supporter of the proposed Prairie Parkway and helped secure more than $200million in federal funding through an earmark in federal transportation legislation last year.Hastert press secretary Ron Bonjean said it is wrong to think that the speaker's backing of the parkway could positively affect his property investments because they are 5 miles from the proposed path of the highway. "It's too far away to have an effect," Bonjean said, adding, "The speaker has bought land like every American has a right to. . . . He is not benefiting from the parkway."Jan Strasma, chairman of Citizens Against the Sprawlway, which opposes the parkway, disputed Bonjean's reasoning."People don't want to live next to the expressway," Strasma said. "They want to live several miles away with easy access."If this were some other individual who wasn't in a position of power and influence you would say, `Gee, they were smart, they made some money,'" Strasma said. "In this case it just doesn't look right."If the Kendall County Board gets its way, residents of the development would have quick access to the parkway via an interchange at Galena Road.The board last month passed a resolution calling for the construction of an interchange there, although county officials say they don't have the money to pay for it.County Engineer Francis Klaas said an interchange would not be built unless the state, the federal government or a private developer put up the money. The state of Illinois has said it has no plans to provide highway access at Galena Road.Wisconsin propertyThe Wisconsin property that Hastert acquired is a mixture of woods, pasture and cropland.Sherwood Matti, the farmer who sold Hastert the land, said his real estate agent posted photos of the property on the Internet, where they may have come to the speaker's attention.Bonjean said he did not know Hastert's plans for the property.Matti said, "It's a beautiful place. He could develop home lots on it if he wanted."The property is west of Madison, midway between Dubuque, Iowa, and La Crosse, Wis.Matti said he sold the land because "I'm 77 years old and I'm done with it."He said he negotiated through real estate agents and didn't realize who he'd sold the land to until someone pointed out Hastert's name on documents after the sale was complete."I'm not a politician," Matti said. "I had no idea who he was."

...read complete post at National Debunker

Posted by from the blogosphere at 12:22 AM | Permalink

Glenn Reynolds

...read complete post at Instapundit.com

Posted by at 10:54 PM | Permalink

Posted at Freedom Democrats | Online community for pro-Freedom Democrats:

There are several minor stories that I want to bring attention to.
First, Congressman Jeff Flake offered up a series of anti-pork amendments, originally 12, going after various earmarks last Wednesday in the House. In the end, only 4 came up for a vote and the Club for Growth has a list of the Congressmen who voted for all of the Flake Amendments. Out of the 46 Congressmen, were Democrats--first termer Melissa Bean of Illinois (53.33%), Jim Cooper of Tennessee (53.33%), Jim Matheson of Utah (46.67%), and John Tanner of Tennessee (46.67%). Their economic scores from the Freedom Democrats Economic Scorecard are given and remember that the average for the House on economic issues was 33.33%.
Second, the Chicago Tribune, perhaps following the advice of some Chicago economists, has a very good editorial questioning the rush to support ethanol with subsidies.
Ethanol in the U.S. is subsidized through a 51-cent-a-gallon tax credit. Corn-based ethanol, largely produced from Midwest crops, dominates the U.S. market. It might face competition from sugar-based ethanol, which is more energy-efficient and largely produced overseas. But a 54-cent-a-gallon tariff on sugar-based ethanol essentially freezes it out of the U.S. market.
So the government props up one kind of ethanol and freezes out another kind of ethanol and ... with all that gimmickry, how are we supposed to find out which oil alternative has the most promise in the market?
Third, Washington Whispers thinks that the Democratic Primary in 2008 will come down to Hillary Clinton, Mark Warner, and Russ Feingold. I think Warner's over-hyped, but that doesn't mean he can't make it to the final three based on that hype.
On the same topic, there's a good DailyKos diary from a few days ago about the problems with Mark Warner's emphasis on a knowledged based economy. Until we perfect robots, service workers are going to be a fact of life. Here at Freedom Democrats we have a solution: stronger unions by reforming Taft-Hartley and the Citizen's Dividend.
Fourth, there's a good article on the realities of the Progressive Era by William Anderson. "The Myth of the Robber Barons" by Burton W. Folsom Jr. is going on my to read list now.
And finally, check out author Michael Pollan on the Colbert Report. I've been reading his book and I was pleased to see him on the show. The interview should still be on the main page, but it's worth going back to find. He makes a good point that our government is doing more harm than good to our nation's diet through its agricultural policies.

...read complete post at Freedom Democrats | Online community for pro-Freedom Democrats

Posted by from the blogosphere at 06:21 PM | Permalink

Posted at Democracy Market:

This is a great way to make some money.
You're Dennis Hastert. You and some partners buy up some property west of Chicago. Then you get $200 million in federal funds to help bring a highway within 5 miles of the property. Suddenly, with the new infrastructure coming in, a developer wants to buy your property and build 1,500 homes on it. So you and your partners sell, with much of the property going for over three times what you paid for it not three years ago. All told, in less than three years, you personally make $1.5 million from the deal.
Nothing wrong there. Here's the defense:
--------Hastert press secretary Ron Bonjean said it is wrong to think that the speaker's backing of the parkway could positively affect his property investments because they are 5 miles from the proposed path of the highway. "It's too far away to have an effect," Bonjean said, adding, "The speaker has bought land like every American has a right to. . . . He is not benefiting from the parkway."---------
That makes perfect sense. If you are a moron. As the article notes, people don't want to live next to a highway, but they do like to live close to it. Having a major expressway 5 miles away, instead of 45 miles, makes land more valuable. There is plenty of land in Murrietta and Temecula, CA that is more than 5 miles from Interstate 15, but is still plenty more valuable because of the link it provies to San Diego and Orange Counties. The same is true in this instance.
I don't doubt Hastert would have probably tried to earmark the funds even if he didn't own the land. And he may have purchased the land even if he didn't have the pull to earmark the funds. But you have to be completely clueless or outrageously arrogant to think this is OK.


...read complete post at Democracy Market

Posted by from the blogosphere at 06:02 PM | Permalink

Glenn Reynolds

...read complete post at Instapundit.com

Posted by at 04:46 PM | Permalink

Josh Marshall

...read complete post at Talking Points Memo: by Joshua Micah Marshall

Posted by at 03:11 PM | Permalink

Glenn Reynolds

...read complete post at Instapundit.com

Posted by at 02:53 PM | Permalink

Josh Marshall

...read complete post at Talking Points Memo: by Joshua Micah Marshall

Posted by at 02:05 PM | Permalink

Posted at The Impolitic:

Who needs lobbyists and their bribes donations when you can make a killing on your own earmarks? The complex structure of a real estate transaction in Kendall County last December left House Speaker Dennis Hastert with a seven-figure profit and in prime position to reap further benefits as the exurban region west of Chicago continues its prairie-fire growth boosted by a Hastert-backed federally funded proposed highway.Instead of cash, Hastert (R-Ill.) took most of his share of the proceeds in land, some of it less than 2 miles from the parcels he and two partners in a land trust sold for nearly $5 million to a developer who plans to build more than 1,500 homes and commercial space on the property near Little Rock and Galena roads in Plano.Hastert received five-eighths of the proceeds of the sale, which worked out to a profit of more than $1.5 million for him on property that he and his partners accumulated in a little more than three years.He, of course, took the proceeds in land instead of cash to avoid paying capital gains taxes. No point in giving something back to the people, who he bilked by manipulating the system, and the land will only go up in value while they hold onto it for the required year's time. The speaker has long been a staunch supporter of the proposed Prairie Parkway and helped secure more than $200million in federal funding through an earmark in federal transportation legislation last year.Hastert press secretary Ron Bonjean said it is wrong to think that the speaker's backing of the parkway could positively affect his property investments because they are 5 miles from the proposed path of the highway. "It's too far away to have an effect," Bonjean said, adding, "The speaker has bought land like every American has a right to. . . . He is not benefiting from the parkway."Right. Residential land abutting a noisy highway where all you hear is the semis driving by is much more attractive than a bucolic parcel where birds serenade you to sleep, yet is within easy driving distance to the access point. Granted there is nothing illegal about this and if an ordinary citizen had done it, we might say he was a good businessman. But it strikes one as unethical to use your inside knowledge of government projects, that you engineer yourself, to profit in the private sector while you're still in office.

...read complete post at The Impolitic

Posted by from the blogosphere at 12:27 PM | Permalink

Posted at War and Piece:

Nice sketch of the triangular arrangement between Appropriations committee chairman Jerry Lewis, former San Diego rep Bill Lowery and 19 California towns and institutions that hired Lowery's firm to help get earmarks; raising the question, was it a shakedown? and...

...read complete post at War and Piece

Posted by from the blogosphere at 10:31 AM | Permalink

Posted at PrairiePundit:

Washington Post:Over the past decade Vibration & Sound Solutions Ltd., a small Alexandria defense contractor, has received a steady flow of federal contracts to work on "Project M" -- $37 million in all from annual "earmarks" by congressional supporters such as Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.).Project M, a technology involving magnetic levitation, was conceived as a way to keep submarine machinery quieter, was later marketed as a way to keep Navy SEALs safer in their boats and, in the end, was examined as a possible way to protect Marines from roadside bombs.All the applications have one thing in common: The Pentagon hasn't wanted them....Analysts and others who follow congressional earmarking closely say the company's experience exemplifies one of the pitfalls of the process: Once begun, promising but speculative programs like Project M are hard to kill, sustained by members of Congress who want to keep jobs in their districts, military officials who want to keep their options open and businesspeople who want to keep their companies afloat.Paul M. Lowell, a civilian Navy employee who for a time oversaw VSSL's work as chief of staff in the Office of Naval Research, said Project M "seemed to me a solution looking for a problem the Navy might have.""But it kept failing to solve any problems the Navy had," Lowell said. "It looked at first as if it might have some merit. But we found out quickly it didn't really solve the problems. And the company wasn't very responsive and wasn't very robust. . . . It was living entirely" on grants from Congress.Lowell said Project M wouldn't have lasted as long inside the Navy, where scientific projects are subjected to peer review.The Navy rejected Project M's use in submarines in 2001. Moran, who said the company's 25 or so jobs were important to his district, and Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), now chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, kept money flowing to the company until this year....Moran is one of the worst Congressmen in Washington. He is an anti war puke and he is wasting defense dollars on womething of no value to buy a few votes in his district. Republicans should make a serious effort to defeat him even if his district is heavily Democratic. Only someone who does not care about integrity in government could support this guy.

...read complete post at PrairiePundit

Posted by from the blogosphere at 10:00 AM | Permalink

Posted at Hit and Run:

Expect this story to be repeated many, many times over after this year's midterm elections. Brian Bilbray, the former Congressman...

...read complete post at Hit and Run

Posted by from the blogosphere at 09:49 AM | Permalink

Posted at http://www.onemanstrash.blogspot.com/:

Pork and the Idle Richmond Press CorpsWord came down Saturday that Virginia's budget tussle was over (for everything except transportation, that is). There was much chest-beating from the worthies...they agreed to spend a great deal of money on projects, and managed to kill or at least wound a few taxes along the way.That's just grand.But tucked into the budget compromise are those bits and pieces of pork for various and sundry nonprofit organizations that I noted way back in January (the list has no doubt changed since that post) and the Jaded JD detailed last week that may not be allowable under the constitution.But to my knowledge, aside from this Garren Shipley piece, the Richmond press corps is either oblivious to the pork in the budget, and its questionable constitutionality, or turned a blind eye to it.This is shameful. Granted, we're not talking about huge sums of money in relation to the rest of the budget. But there is a story here, and even a cautionary tale, of sorts, from North Carolina:Pork barrel spending on projects in favored members' districts has largely disappeared from both budgets as well. Two years ago, lawmakers hid roughly $15 million in pork barrel initiatives in reserve funds that were placed within three state agencies but controlled by legislative leaders.The funds became public after Black used $45,000 to create a state job for former Rep. Michael Decker.Once Senate leaders announced their budget would have little pork, the House followed suit."Everybody just agreed that if nobody got it, they'd be fine," said Rep. Jim Crawford, an Oxford Democrat and a chief budget writer.Virginia legislators don't hide their pork in reserve funds (that I am aware of). But they do earmark substantial funds for organizations that do not seem to meet the strict definition of acceptable appropriations. Where are the column inches on the topic? Where are the probing editorials?Mike Shear...call your office.

...read complete post at http://www.onemanstrash.blogspot.com/

Posted by from the blogosphere at 09:22 AM | Permalink

Posted at Tick Marks:


The House Rules Committee approved by an 8-4 vote a proposal to provide line-item veto authority to the President. Chairman Daniel Dreier (R-CA) thought that the veto power would supplement present Congressional efforts to control "earmark" spending, while Democrats feared the potential for abusive or retalitory use.
Line-item veto power is an imperfect way to control "pork-barrel" spending and the Democratic point is perhaps theoretically valid. Nevertheless, pork has gotten way out of control and a line-item veto would be welcomed--assuming, of control, that this iteration passes Constitutional muster.


...read complete post at Tick Marks

Posted by from the blogosphere at 08:17 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (1)

Posted at Blue Crab Boulevard:


Fuuuuuunds. Need Fuuuuunds. 
Today's Washington Post has a story about just one failed "earmark" project. While the technology may be useful someday, it isn't right now. Nonetheless the Democratic Congressman who represents the area where the company is located kept funds flowing from 1994 until this year. Here's how [...]]]>

...read complete post at Blue Crab Boulevard

Posted by from the blogosphere at 07:18 AM | Permalink

Posted at The Moderate Voice - -:

If you've been unconvinced by my continuous prattling on about the issues with earmarks, I hope that a Charles Babcock article in today's Washington Post will help. Called "

...read complete post at The Moderate Voice - -

Posted by from the blogosphere at 07:06 AM | Permalink

Posted at War and Piece:

The Post's Charles Babcock reports on Project M, and the small defense contractor that provided the technology for it that got millions of dollars in earmarks from the Navy that the Navy never wanted. Tying it together with a brief...

...read complete post at War and Piece

Posted by from the blogosphere at 12:06 AM | Permalink

Josh Marshall

"The complex structure of a real estate transaction in Kendall County last December left House Speaker Dennis Hastert with a seven-figure profit and in prime position to reap further benefits as the exurban region west of Chicago continues its prairie-fire growth boosted by a Hastert-backed federally funded proposed highway."

...read complete post at Talking Points Memo: by Joshua Micah Marshall

Posted by at 10:35 AM | Permalink

Posted at National Debunker:

Turns out the $1.5 million Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R-IL) recently grossed from an undisclosed real estate trust was only an apetizer.Several more fat pay days are on the menu for the plus-sized lawmaker.Background to a rip-offThe "Prairie Parkway" Hastert pushed through the House as an earmark took an isolated parcel of farmland Hastert and two cronies had placed in a private real estate trust and transformed it into prime investment property with easy access to major cities -- worth millions to developers.In gobbling up a fast $1.5 million profit seven month after setting up the trust, Hastert unloaded only about 70 acres of his initial 195-acre purchase, leaving Denny with plenty more land to sell and millions more to feast on. A Hastert spokesperson's spin that the land is 5.5 from the new highway and hence irrelevant to the earmark is total cow shit. A commenter at the Sunlight Foundation, which first outed the Speaker's sweetheart land trust deal, used Google Earth to calculate that the true distance between the entrance to the highway and Hastert's property is 2.6 miles. Hat tip to Think Progress for the report.IL-14 voters who may have fretted Hastert might someday have to leave the House with only a plump pension to ease his retirement years can relax. The congressman will never have to worry where his next high-calorie meal will come from. Would the Speaker care for a wafer thin mint?

...read complete post at National Debunker

Posted by from the blogosphere at 03:40 AM | Permalink

Posted at BizzyBlog.com:

Part 1 of 3: Social Security (this post)
Part 2 of 3: Medicare (pending)
Part 3 of 3: College Financial Aid (pending)
A TCS Daily article by Jeffrey Alan Miron, identifies five ideas for reducing federal spending and the budget deficit that liberals as well as conservatives should support.
Two of them, cutting agricultural subsidies and reducing earmarks, make [...]]]>

...read complete post at BizzyBlog.com

Posted by from the blogosphere at 12:01 PM | Permalink

Posted at Selenian Boondocks:


I find it deeply amusing seeing how some people who support the ESAS approach to returning to the Moon tend to get so hopping mad over congressional earmarks. The logic goes that all of these earmarks set aside for pet projects of various congresscritters takes money away from real space exploration and real space science.
I guess I actually agree with that logic. Earmarks for the most part are a bunch of wasteful pork projects that do nothing to aid in the actual exploration and development of space. The problem is that most of the ESAS implementation so far has been little better than overglorified earmarks. What else can you call it when NASA refuses to get out of the Earth-to-Orbit transportation business, and instead gives billions of dollars to ATK and the likes to build a launch vehicle based on an oversized bottle rocket? Even hardcore supporters of the current ESAS approach have had to fall back to arguments about the "political realities" of why we need to blow several billion developing Shuttle Derived vehicles