Oh, Yes mam, the Republicans HATE earmarks.

Dexter did the right thing, HIS ARTICLE links directly to Politico.

Their hypocrisy knows no bounds.

TO ALL WISE LIBERALS:
What is the Constitutional Authority for an earmark item? Such items neither (in most cases) promote the general welfare nor impact interstate commerce. So where then does the Constitution allow them?
The fact that members of both sides get them simply means they are addicted to the supposed 'benefits' of earmarks for them personally (ie re-election). Is it better to use them to stay in Congress while you work to get rid of the practice or to refuse the practice from the jump and leave after one term?
Don't misunderstand, I don't like earmarks at all but that is where the Congress has evolved to.

Did you read any of what was posted in this article or either of the articles referenced? EIGHT OF THE TEN MEMBERS OF THE REPUBLICAN EARMARK STOPPERS CLUB GOT EARMARKS.

Nothing about the legality of their actions, nothing about the Constitutionality of the Government spending money or mandating that you spend yours. JUST A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF "Don't do as I do, do as I say."

Why don't we push one bill one subject to make their work easier.

Colonel George, as of the end of business today, 3822 Health Care Bills are being considered in the US Congress. IF THE VOTE ON TEN A DAY, THEY WILL BE DONE A YEAR FROM CHRISTMAS.

Well then they better to to work don't you think Karl?

George, we are paying those clowns to write legislation. THEY ARE. My opinion they are writing way to much of it.

That's a fact Karl, Some nut called they lawmakers and they too it serious. Evidintly they don't know they are Representatives of the people

What you don't seem to understand is that being a Republican does not make one a conservative, nor a fiscal conservative.

And this conservative wants all earmarks gone. I also want all bills to be voted on by themselves and not attached to other bills. But I doubt the idiots in Washington will ever do either, even though they usually all mention wanting to from time to time. (Just like Obama mentioned that he wouldn't hire lobbyists.)

Marilyn, without earmarks how are you going to get a new Interstate Highway interchange built to service your favorite shopping mall? Are you going to tax the shopping mall? That will certainly NOT work, because the mall would have to pay for the interchange, and that would mean they would have to rent at above market rates, and that would mean they had fewer tenants, and higher prices.

Oops, sorry, I forgot you are one of the people who cheer when Wal Mart gets tax breaks so they can drive all the local shops out of business...so long as it is not your local shop.

Karl, let there be real budget items that have to be approved, not earmarks that sneak into bills and that are used as paybacks.

And, trust me, I don't give a crap about Walmart. Wouldn't shop there if you paid me.

I would have expected WalMart to be your everything store.

Here is what is wrong with your plan. This is a PARTIAL SCHEDULE. It is also a pretty good explanation of why I find so much ignorance of how congress works. I would be willing to put money on the proposition that nearly ALL Americans are ignorant of the existence of HR 3962, which was introduced this month, co sponsored by 6 representatives, and just as complicated as 3200, but not in the public eye...yet. Then there is the another bill, Introduced by Kucinich, creating a single payer FEDERAL health care system. The plan of Medicare for all from cradle to grave.

Regarding the Budget process and earmarks, the budget is ONLY one place those pesky spending proposals show up. There might be a few attached to any Health care Reform we see. Probably for the construction if IHS or VA clinics in out of the way regions of South Dakota, West Virginia, and Upstate New York. But I digress.

Some earmarks, for example the construction of facilities at military bases are frequently earmarked spending, are important and useful projects. To vote on each one as an independent bill would result in a situation worse than what we have. Needed work would get voted down out of pique, and the Congress would be paralyzed with thousands of votes on two page measures.

WalMart is a constant target for me. Target offers most of the same products at the same price, with a much more pleasant shopping experience. Sometimes Target is considerably cheaper. Sears and KMART also do a fine job of competing in the discount market.

They could put earmarks on bills of similar subject

George what kind of fun would that be?

Marilyn, in regards to this comment, "being a Republican does not make one a conservative, nor a fiscal conservative."

YES IT DOES. That is the definition of Republican. If you are not that, you are not a Republican, NO MATTER WHAT YOU CLAIM.

Republicans are Conservative, Fiscal Conservatives and social conservatives. Well they are if they are NOT ELECTED REPUBLICAN OFFICIALS.

"YES IT DOES."

re⋅pub⋅li⋅can
  
–adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or of the nature of a republic.
2. favoring a republic.
3. fitting or appropriate for the citizen of a republic: a very republican notion.
4. (initial capital letter) of or pertaining to the Republican party.
–noun
5. a person who favors a republican form of government.
6. (initial capital letter) a member of the Republican party.

Hmmmm nothing stated about being conservative.

NO IT DOESN'T! LOL!

DAN YOU IDIOT, HAVE YOU READ THE PLATFORM OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IN ANY OF THE LAST TEN YEARS?

To be a member of a club, or political party or ARMY you have to subscribe to the principals and policies of that ORGANIZATION GROUP OR CORPORATE ENTITY. TO BE A REPUBLICAN YOU MUST BE A CONSERVATIVE BECAUSE THE PLATFORM OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS A CONSERVATIVE PLATFORM.

YOU ARE A DUMB AS a rock.

But Karl,
Dumb as a rock Dan here just proved that what you said is not true!
You said:

"That is the definition of Republican"

And I posted the definition. LOL!

Dumb as a rock Dan asks The brilliant and wise Karl to prove to us that the Republican platform says you have to be a conservative to be a member.....Watch this folks...He can't do it!

BULL you are still dumb as a box of rocks. YOU DEFINED REPUBLICAN AS A MEMBER OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY...OR DID YOU FORGET THAT PART? A member of the republican Party IS BY DEFINITION A SUBSCRIBER TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY PLATFORM. That platform is conservative AND becoming more conservative by the day. THEREFORE...OR Ergo, REPUBLICANS ARE CONSERVATIVES OR THEY ARE SUBVERTING THE REPUBLICAN PARTY BY JOINING AND NOT FOLLOWING THE PLATFORM.

You are dumb as a box of rocks still.

And Danny, please note that in each case Linda and You and I capitalized Republican. By the way, a person who favors the republican form of government is This Democrat. But that person would be called a Republican in a discussion of forms of government, just as a person who favored monarchy would be a Royalist.

OH dear, Karl is a moron, he called "Marilyn" Linda. He is so stupid he cannot tell them apart.

Hell Karl it is hard to tell them apart.
Maybe they are one in the same?

Karl, in case you haven't noticed, there are a lot of Republicans in office right now who should be Democrats. They are not conservatives. So, obviously you don't have to be conservative to be a Republican. We wish they all were, but they're not.

See folks!
The not so brilliant and not so wise Karl couldn't post anything from the Republican platform stating that membership in the Republican party was predicated upon being a conservative!

That makes dumb as a box of rocks Danny smarter than BDL Karl! Ahahahaha!

If they could just stop wasting earmark money on worthless crap for the military now that would be useful.
Billions and billions on planes that can't fly in the rain.
By the way m the only way a district gets anything for it taxes is through earmarks.
Also the repugs are just as guilty as anyone for stupid worthless expenditures see Iraq.

For a minute there I forgot who wrote this article.

Earmarks, a buzz word for something that does not actually happen much. In today's economic situation a better name for Earmarks is STIMULUS SPENDING.

And we need more now.

More reason for the party of never to obstruct and the Democrats to wimp out.
Yes indeed my party is full of wimps.

What we fail to understand is that earmarks are BAd when the OTHER party does it, that is when the screaming starts but when the whiner uses it, well that's an entirely different story.

I think I undersatand what I think you said Rude D. But I am not sure that what I think you said is what you think you said.

I do think that what is good for the goose is good for the gander, at least when either is being roasted for Sunday dinner. But It seems to me that you were expressing the concept that hypocrisy is rampant in politics and in political discussion. Particularly when WINNING takes precedence over Serving, and when being asked to serve is tantamount to being punished.

It is important to realize that not looking out for the welfare of the rest of the people in your community can easily lead them to believe that the community would be better off if you were living in some other community.