Less than a week after he swore off earmarks, U.S. Rep. Dave Reichert visited the new 911 dispatch center for eastern King County, where he was publicly thanked by local officials for helping secure $1.7 million in earmarks for the center.
The Washington state Republican announced in March that he wouldn’t seek any earmarks this year, because the system was out of control and in need of serious overhaul. But he says that doesn’t mean he wasn’t going to take credit for the $27 million in earmarks he secured last year.
“You’re doggone right I was there,” said the two-term congressman, who faces what’s expected to be a tough re-election campaign. “I am not ashamed to take credit for something we worked hard on. Shoot, I’d be stupid not to.”
So let me get this right… Dave Reichert takes credit for swearing off earmarks, and securing them, at the same time… and nobody laughs in his face? No journalist asks him to explain why, if earmarks are so valuable and justifiable, he’d deny them to his district for the sake of a rhetorical gesture; or if earmarks are such a waste of taxpayer money as to warrant his pledge, why he’s not a tiny bit ashamed to take credit for them?
And Kate Riley accuses Darcy Burner of a “lack of authenticity” …? Dollars to donuts when Riley writes the second in her series of viciously dishonest Reichert endorsements, she’ll cite his bullshit earmark pledge in lauding him for his fiscal responsibility. But then, what do you expect from the amen editorialists at the Seattle Times?
Still pissed that your empty suit isn’t getting more favorable pub?
So he was for the earmarks before he was against them? That sounds really familiar, wonder where I heard that line before.
If I were Dave, I too would take credit for the earmarks secured last year before he swore them off. In this case at least the earmark went to something useful and worthwhile (a 911 dispatch center). I know earmarks don’t make up much of the federal spending but I still think those that have chosen to set aside earmarks (especially for unnecessary stuff like museums and such) in this horrid economy are acknowledging that something needs to be done to reel in spending where it can be reeled in.
@1
Dacy’s doing just fine
michael @ 4 – it’s really too bad Darcy didn’t get Wes Clark here with her! :(
Hannah,
Earmarks are not a way of increasing federal spending. Removing or reliquishing all earmarks will not save a penny of federal spending. Rather, they are a courtesy extended from the executive branch to the legislative branch. They allow a legislator to direct money that has already been appropriated to a particular recipient project or institution. The money will be spent anyway; this just allows legislators to fund projects in their district instead of in someone else’s.
So like all things of value, these are used in a number of ways. For example, Reichert can funnel federal funds into his district. Or he can trade earmarks.
At any rate, a conversation about regulating or curtailing earmarks is not a conversation about reducing federal spending. Just thought you should know.
Earmarks are widely misunderstood. An earmark is not an appropriation. Rather, it directs money already appropriated in a spending bill to a specific project. For example, if Congress appropriates $2.5 billion for levees, an earmark may direct that $750 million of that money be spent on New Orleans levees.
MSM sometimes does call bullshit on candidates who peddle nonsense about earmarks. Newsweek did exactly that a few weeks ago when John McCain promised to reduce federal spending and preserve tax cuts by eliminating earmark spending. Newsweek correctly pointed out that earmarks are not appropriations, and eliminating earmarks would merely result in appropriated moneys being allocated to specific projects through some other mechanism. Most likely, if congressmen don’t direct how money for things like levees, bridges, and airports will be spent then those decisions will be made by bureaucrats.
The notion that earmarks are fat or waste is also a shibboleth. It’s reasonable and valid for people of different partisan persuasions to have philosophical differences over the size and role of government, how much government should spend, and what public money should be used for.
But the premise of the earmark demagoguery currently being practiced by certain politicians and some journalists is a false assumption that earmarked funds are waste. Notwithstanding sensational news stories about silly-sounding grants for “brides to nowhere” and the like, most of that money represents actual benefit to the public. All the earmark process is, is competition among congressmen for a share of federal spending for their own districts. This has been going on for 200 years. To a great degree, the only thing that has changed is the terminology: What we used to call “pork” is now “earmarks” but it’s the same thing — it’s a congressman using his office to get federal money for his district for things like bridges, emergency call centers, health clinics, and other things that benefit the public.
So, when politicians campaign on promises to cut taxes and spending by eliminating earmarks, what they’re really saying is they don’t believe in government, and they’d rather provide their constituents with tax cuts than with government services that benefit all of us. And when you look closely at their proposals, what you usually find is their tax cuts will benefit only the small elite who need tax cuts the least, at the expense of government services that benefit the vast majority of us.
From the PI article that shows up in michael’s query:
Dave won in 2006 only because the NRCC poured money into his campaign late in the cycle. He won’t have a “strong stretch run” this year, because the NRCC won’t have the money and has indicated that they won’t be giving him much, if any, and on his own Dave’s not much of an organizer or campaigner.
@3:
Either earmarks are bad and Reichert is swearing off them for that reason – or they are (situationally) good and he is a hypocrite for promoting earmarks when they benefit him and his constituents but is against them when others do it.
Which is it?
He can’t have it both ways. If earmarks are sooo bad he needs to swear off of them – where was he when the republican led congress ran up record earmarks like the bridge to nowhere or the cronyism of the Interstate exchange in Florida that only a company wanted?
His sudden conversion to anti-earmark smacks of desperation politics and not any moral stand.
9 CNR
That’s not it, I don’t think.
You see, Dave is basically lazy. Coming out and saying he’s against earmarks is a way that he can appear to take a popular stand on an issue cheaply, easily, and in an area that won’t end up being a weakness for him.
It’s a way NOT to talk about issues where he’s on the wrong side. Dino will do the same thing. “I’m for less traffic congestion” Dino says. But what about Plan B contraception? *crickets*
Darcy has to get this onto the issues that hurt him. I think she will.
@9 so should we be asking the same question of all who have sworn off earmarks this year?
As you say “Which is it?”
Earmarks sworn off
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2.....worn_o.php
GOP Senators Vote For Higher Gas Prices
According to the Associated Press, Senate Republicans refused to support a Democratic bill to “extend tax breaks for wind, solar and other alternative energy development, and for the promotion of energy efficiency and conservation,” and also successfully filibustered Democratic attempts to regulate oil speculators.
Hey RR – question for you…the media keeps saying that by putting windfall taxes on the oil companies it will raise prices. Could this even be real? What’s your perspective?
@12 We can always count on Wingnut Hannah to shill for rightwing outfits like Club for Growth.
…and to think it wasn’t all that long ago that local dems and reps alike were swollen with pride at all the pork brought home by Maggie and Scoop.
But I guess their roads, bridges, dams, canals, and buildings were justified, and the current bridges, dams, canals, and buildings are just so much “waste” standing between the common good and the insane idea that we can just click our red slippers together and get all this stuff for ‘free’.
RR @ 15??? HUH??? If you notice it has a complete list of democrats and republicans who have swore off earmarks this year…what makes that a rightwing outfit? NOW if had ONLY listed the republicans, I would agree it was a rightwing outfit. So are you willing to vote against anyone (including the democrats) who have swore off earmarks?
Since earmarks only allocate money which has already been appropriated, note what would happen to the money in the absence of earmarks.
To the extent it is able to do so, those funds would be allocated to projects according to priorities assigned by the Bush administration. The Bush administration has already gotten into some (minor) trouble by illegally instructing civil service employees to give political considerations the primary factor in deciding which projects are funded, and when.
So the Congress is forced to use earmarks to specifically designate how funds are to be spent, rather than leaving it up to the whims of the Bush administration to make that decision.
Of course, Rove & Co. feel it’s a win-win scenario for them. If the Democrats in Congress fail to use earmarks, then they are free to use the money to prop up endangered incumbents (but more discretely this time). If the Democrats use earmarks to protect against this, then Rove & Co. will scream about how the Democrats are abusing earmarks and try to mislead people into thinking it is part of the budget deficit problem. (Misleading voters is probably on Rove’s resume, under “Usefull Job Skills”.)
Of course, Reichart’s “no earmarks” pledge is just a cover anyway, because he wants to use that as an excuse for not being able to get any earmarks this year anyway.
rhp – I agree earmarks are money already set aside in the budget, but when it comes to stuff like museums, I see we don’t “NEED” those types. Yes we need them for emergency services, roads and transportation projects but not for “entertainment” purposes, use that money on other earmarks, useful ones.
17 Hannah
Club for Growth IS a right-wing outfit. The only question is whether their list is truly “complete,” as you claim. Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. I have a hard time believing that right-wing arganizations tell the truth. Wann know why?
DL @ 20 – yeah agreed now that I know it’s a strictly rightwing site but it does list the most important figure on there nixing earmarks :)
@14 The main reason why oil prices are skyrocketing is supply constraint. The world is producing the same amount of oil today that it did in 2005. Faced with rapidly rising demand, markets have responded with higher prices. And oil will continue going higher until demand drops until it’s in balance with available supply.
There are many reasons why supply is not growing to meet rising demand — turmoil in oil-producing regions, the fact we’ve already found and tapped the “easy” oilfields, and the fact consumption growth is outstripping new oil discoveries. It would be incorrect to say the world is running out of oil, or even that we’ve hit the “peak oil” production ceiling.
Rather, the roots of today’s supply limitations lie in the cheap oil of the 1980s and 1990s,which led to disinvestment by the oil industry. When oil sold for $10 to $30 a barrel, oil companies had neither the incentive nor the funds to develop arctic and deep sea supplies that cost $40 to $80 a barrel to extract, which is where most of the new supplies have to come from.
Theoretically, today’s pricing environment should be spurring new E & P (exploration and production) activity, and to some extent it is. New drillships and offshore platforms are being built, and new oilfields are being opened up. But this is a slow process (it takes 10 years to bring a new oilfield into production) that can’t provide immediate relief to oil-starved markets.
But far more disturbing is the fact that large oil companies are using much of their windfall to boost dividends and/or buy back stock, instead of investing in new production.
That’s partly due to the fact that 90% of the world’s oil reserves have been nationalized and there’s not much new oil that private companies have access to. Nowadays, the oil majors largely operate as contractors-for-hire to the government owners of oil reserves. But it also reflects a belief among oil executives that crude prices have been inflated by speculation and won’t stay at current levels over the decades it takes to earn a return by developing new production.
As for the oil-producing governments, they have little or no incentive to spend billions of dollars on boosting production simply to lower the value of their product.
I don’t think a straight windfall profits tax is a good idea. It wouldn’t directly raise prices, but it would redirect money away from developing new energy sources to government spending, resulting in continuing supply constraints, which in turn would keep prices high long-term. The industry needs a period of above-normal profits to reinvest in E & P following a 20-year period of massive disinvestment.
But I would support structuring taxes on oil companies to create disincentives for distributing profits above a certain amount to shareholders instead of investing in oil production or alternative energy technology. I also like the idea of coupling this approach to tax incentives for directing R & D and development funds to alternative energy, because oil won’t last forever and we do need to lessen our dependence on oil, and eventually find replacements for oil. In other words, if the oil companies don’t spend their windfall on supplying energy, then we should tax some of it away from them and use it for public purposes. After all, that money is coming from us.
So I would NOT be “willing to vote against anyone (including the democrats) who have swore [sic] off earmarks.” I think earmarks are inconsequential, and will vote against the Republicans whose political decisions are ruining our country.
RR @ 22 – wow! Thanks for the info. I worry that a winfall tax would piss off the oil companies and they would start producing less, therefore drive up prices….could this be an issue?
I like the idea of making them re-invest and limiting the profits to shareholders!
Hey, a “little black bird” just told me in an email that the person masquerading as “Hannah” is really someone else that we are all familiar with on this blog.
Looks like another outing is about to occur, right Puddybud?
GBS @ 25 – ok you are sounding like ByeByeGOP…no last time I checked I am a female and definately not a big black man! I don’t think Puddy pulls the headless lucy and BBG trick of changing names.
Roger Rabbit,
I just read an interesting article on the global oil supply problems.
According to the Saudi’s “There is no justification for the current rise in prices,”
While it’s true there is a “constraint” on supplies, this is mostly market manipulation by huge hedge fund managers and speculators.
ExxonMobil CEO testified to congress two months ago that 50-60% of the cost of oil is “speculators” trading on next to nothing margin calls.
Raising the margin calls will squeeze out speculators that have no business being at the very, very small table. Let’s face it, there are few people in this world that can actually fulfill a normal oil contract. There is a need for liquidity in the markets, even oil, so speculators do provide a service, but like all things in life too much of a good thing is usually bad.
“Hannah”,
Did I say you were Puddybud? Or, did you assume that because I wrote “right, Puddybud?”
See, Puddybud has been outed by Goldy before, so he knows that a slip can happen.
But, I definitely didn’t say you were, in fact, Puddybud.
Ask Roger Rabbit, he’s a lawyer.
Nor did I say that Goldy emailed me, I only said he outed Puddybud. Don’t get intellectually lazy on me now, ” “Hannah” “.
Baaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa
Looks like another outing is about to occur, right Puddybud?
Laughing.my.ass.off…
Back to oil, I don’t think a windfall profits tax is a good idea. The oil companies should pay their taxes at the same rate any other business in America pays.
If they just want to reward their shareholders they should receive no tax breaks.
GBS – ahahahahahahahah you said “person masquerading as “Hannah” so yes you did claim I am using a name as someone else. Did I say you said I was Puddy??? NO….I just said I was female and not a big black man..didn’t mean I said I wasn’t Puddy.
I understood you when you said “right Puddy” and yes I know Puddy has been outed (from my understanding a very long time ago) and if this little black bird says I am someone else, maybe they need to check the IP address as it’s still the same as ever.
YLB @ 29 – so you disagree with windfall tax on the oil companies profits? Roger hasn’t given me his idea on if windfall tax would cause prices to go even higher…thoughts? The media seems to be blowing this up!
(and if Goldy can check my IP, he can prove it’s still just me and no one masquerading as me)
YLB @ 29:
I agree with the windfall tax for two reasons:
1) Even President Bush said oil companies shouldn’t receive tax breaks if oil exceeded $50 a barrel. Of course, that was before oil was less than that threshold and he was trying to defend his and the Republican’s decisions to reward their big donors. Considering we’re way, way past that threshold of logic, then profits beyond this point should be retroactively taxed and so, too, should future taxes above this threshold.
2) That money should go specifically and only to RE sources. (Renewable Energy). We cannot drill our way out of this problem even if we put oil wells everywhere in American territories where there is oil. It will take about as long to bring on new oil fields as it will to bring on new technology. Since oil is finite on our imagination is limitless, the answer is obvious.
Unless of course you’re a conservative and against intellectuals, academia, reason and commonsense, then RE is the way to go given the timeline horizons and benefit analysis vs.
McBush’s plandoing the same thing and expecting better results.31 – Roger expressed his opinion in 22. I concur with him to a point.
I believe the oil companies should lose their tax breaks – they don’t need them anymore. They have all the incentive in the world to produce as much as they can and make tons of cash for their shareholders, in my opinion.
“Did I say you said I was Puddy??? NO….I just said I was female and not a big black man..didn’t mean I said I wasn’t Puddy.”
RHP need your help here. Your mom was the English teacher and you helped her correct papers, doesn’t this double negative sentence reveal ” “Hannah’s” ” true identity?
@34 sorry I missed A single word and a comma:
It didn’t mean I said, “I wasn’t Puddy”
@ 33:
I agree, but consider what is being done, in particular regarding RR point – But far more disturbing is the fact that large oil companies are using much of their windfall to boost dividends and/or buy back stock.
Using your money and my money to repurchase their own stocks, or give bigger dividend checks to people like Dick Cheney is outrageous. That is why I not only support a windfall tax, but a pretty hefty one at that.
” “Hannah” ” @ 35:
I know, just bustin’ your balls.
Hey, have you heard from PacMan lately?
GBS @ 37 – sorry I am in a really bad funk today and am wearing my emotions on my sleeve. :(
No I haven’t seen PacMan on here in quite awhile and even Puddy seems to be on only a few minutes a day….what are those 2 planning? ;-)
I’ll just say that I find it a little hard to believe that Hannah’s some kind of right-wing troll. That one doesn’t make sense to me.
Steve @ 39 – thanks for seeing the light, I’m like you in a sense, not a full fledge righty or lefty.
Hmm, I have devised a test. I see that Countdown beat O’Reilly in the ratings for the first time last week. If Hannah’s head has exploded upon reading this then she is a troll. If her head does not explode, then she’s probably an ordinary person. Still got a head on your shoulders, Hannah?
@40 That is what I’ve chosen to believe. I concluded from a conversation we had one late afternoon that you are a very decent person.
Steve, yes I am still here!! :)
And my head is still attached and in one piece!
@43 Good. I figured as much.
32 – Well I wouldn’t hang anything on what Bush says. I don’t think going off on the oil companies for their good fortune is a wise course politically.
We’re in for politically volatile times. People could be in for a lot of pain. It’s too easy for people waiting in gas lines to curse the government.
Not only people like Cheney benefit from the good times in oil, pension funds and widows/orphans benefit as well.
YLB @ 45:
I’m not advocating punnitive damages on oil companies for being profitable. But, when the Saudi’s say the price of oil is too high and there isn’t a good reason for it, you gotta start somewhere.
That stargin point is:
A) Stop giving the oil companies tax breaks that enrich their shareholders instead of it’s “intended” purpose of funding exploration and alternative energy development.
B) Collect the taxes lawfully owed to the government. That’s not punishment that is how business operates in the America.
If speculation is driving a significant piece of the recent oil price hikes, then the feds could mandate bigger “down payments” when traders place speculative futures trades (similar to margin requirements on stock trades).
@ 47:
Yep. You’re spont on. The Saudi’s want something done. Prices this high, this fast threatens their wealth.
Nothing drives change faster than Americans on a mission.
46 – I’m in total agreement with A and B. I just don’t think it’s good politics to make the oil companies pay a higher rate of taxation than any other business in the U.S.
I’ve long favored a carbon tax, that treats all carbon-based fuels, coal, oil, gas equally, balanced with a cut to the payroll tax but I admit it’s politically difficult and to have the desired effect the tax has to hurt.
47 – Yeah! There you go. Too much loose money looking for a higher rate of return is definitely playing a role in spiking these prices.
GBS @ 34: Sorry, but I can only correct what I can decipher. That sentence made no sense to me.
Republicans are against earmarks unless republicans are the ones benefiting from them.
Horsey’s take on the GOP killing the windfall profits tax on oil companies:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/.....sp?ID=1772
I’ve got to wonder what the GOP is thinking, here. Sure, I understand that the oil lobby is an important fund-raiser for them, and it represents their fundamental core constituancy in the party (big companies, wealthy stockholders).
But what good does that do them on election day? The Democrats should have a field day with this one – we may be paying $5.00 per gallon by this summer, and the Republicans are protecting the huge profits of the oil companies???? I don’t think the traditional GOP explanation that “what’s good for the oil companies is good for America” is going to fly this time.
Or maybe they’ve already written off this election cycle, and they have already slipped into gurilla warfare mode in Congress?