Right On The Right

PRESS RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CHATHAM,NEW YORK

JOHN WALLACE - Candidate for Congress in New York's 20th Congressional District has issued his Position Paper entitled "Earmarks Must Be Eliminated."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

EARMARKS MUST BE ELIMINATED

The term "Earmark" is most comonly used to refer to a provision (line-item) in legislation that directs funds to be spent on specific projects. Members of Congress insert earmarks into bills in order to direct specified amounts of money be given or spent on particular organizations or projects in their home states or districts. This differs from the appropriation of budget money to a particular government agency where the agency head can exercise discretion as to where and how the funds are spent. If the funds aren’t earmarked by members of congress, the agencies are free to spend money on projects they believe are most appropriate to meet their organizational goals and objectives.

Earmarks can more accurately be described as giving away the taxpayers hard earned money by secretly attaching line-items into non-related congressional bills for specific projects or specific recipients in order to get re-elected.

Many of the beneficiaries of these earmarked funds are state or local public agencies, but just as often, the money goes to private entities where the beneficiaries are political supporters of the legislators pushing the earmarks. Earmarks are the principal means by which Members of Congress “bring home the pork” and publishing their earmarks during an election year is a common tactic used to help incumbent members of congress get reelected.

It is not so much that any single earmark is the problem, but rather it’s the entire process. There is no real transparency or accountability in the current system. Members of congress try to re-direct billions of dollars of funding to specific projects within their district without subjecting these projects to debate by their colleagues, or to scrutiny and oversight by the public. The earmarking process invites backroom deals and sometimes unethical, or even corrupt behavior. It has become part of a “pay-to-play” culture where lobbyists, contractors and well-connected individuals give campaign contributions to legislators in return for receiving federal funding via earmarks for their special projects.

While the vital interests of the nation are being ignored by members of both houses of congress regardless of party affiliation, many legislators concentrate their efforts on diverting appropriated agency money to low-priority and sometimes outrageous special interest projects that will generate local publicity and additional campaign contributions.

While the country suffers from an invasion of illegal aliens and cannot seem to find the funds for increased border security, congress earmarks $3.4 million to research the Formosan Subterranean Termite and $10 million to La Raza, a pro-illegal alien amnesty organization. While the country goes deeper and deeper into debt and the dollar seems to lose its value every day, congress earmarks $450,000 for the International Peace Garden in Dunseith, North Dakota and $13.5 million for the International Fund for Ireland, which includes funding for the World Toilet Summit. While the nation’s education system is failing the American people, congress earmarks $2 million for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at the City College of New York and another $200,000 for the Andre Agassi College Preparatory Academy in Las Vegas, Nev.

The House of Representatives has recently taken an important first step in reducing earmarks by passing House Rules changes requiring that earmarked spending projects and their congressional sponsors be publicized on the internet at least 48 hours before they are considered for a vote on the floor. Under the new rules, Members of Congress will be required to justify the public need for the specific earmarked expenditures and certify that they won't benefit financially from them. This is a good step forward, but more must be done.

The best way to reduce the number of earmarks is to pass legislation that requires that all bills and legislation be single issue or purposed. An individual bill should address one specific issue and only that issue. Any amendments must directly address that specific issue. No pork, no side issues, and especially no riders. All bills must be published and the discussions open to public scrutiny.

Limiting legislation to a single purpose will make bills more concise, and will substantially reduce the number of expensive special interest giveaways that are routinely inserted into so called "must pass" legislation without any debate. If members of congress want to fund specific projects back in their home states, let them introduce bills for these projects and let these bills be openly debated and voted on.

Here are the links to the Position Paper in PDF and word formats:

http://www.FreedomCandidate.com/PositionPaper-EarmarksMustBeEliminated.pdf

http://www.FreedomCandidate.com/PositionPaper-EarmarksMustBeEliminated.doc

For additional information, contact:

John Wallace
Candidate for COngress
NY's 20th Congressional District
www.FreedomCandidate.com

The original title of the comment above was "The ignorant lizard bitch belches again". Poor widdle Justin's dewicate sensibiwities were offended by my use of the B word.

Of course, he's a little less careful when he himself refers to members of the fairer sex...

Just Another Clinton Bitch

"Chelsea Clinton is just another bitch in the family, and I don't mean a female dog, despite her being called one throughout much of her father's Presidency."

Try not to step in your own poo so often, little smeghead.

Cao was too frakking STOOOOOOOPID to even find the bill in question. It doesn't know what role Obama played in its passage. It is arguing from ignorance, as always.

Did Boehner object to Bush's earmarks?

Yes or no?

1) Horse hockey. You carved yourself a great big ol' loophole, little worm. You've no more intention of serving than you have of actually going out and arresting an illegal immigrant.

2) Long since disproven. Try getting all the facts, ignoramus.

3) See (1). You're a coward. You'll never serve.

4) What the hell do you think that argument that we had to invade Iraq because Saddam was building WMDs was? It's a factless appeal to emotions -- namely, terror. You've let the terrorists win where you are concern, little one. You've let them terrify you.

Did Boehner object to Bush's earmarks?

Yes or no?

Hey meat...where did you serve? Hm?

Who are you you tell anyone how to live their lives? What sacrifices have YOU made that you can claim the "moral high ground"?

When have you placed your life in danger for the betterment of others?

Whether Justin serves or not is up to one person alone : him.

I don't see a single soldier anywhere demanding he sign up, they would rightly say that he has the right to choose...thats why its an all volunteer army.

Saddam did have WMD, he did use them, he did plan to use them, he shipped them to Syria before OIF to make sure they could not be gotten to.

We know this as the Syrians recently had a little accident involving a missile and chemical weapons.Where did they come from, I wonder.

As for earmarks, well you can ask Mr Boehner when he becomes Speaker of the House in 2009. Obamarama and Shrillary wont make it, the next President will be a Republican.

Now go crawl back under your rock.

Meatbrain doesn't understand what co sponsoring a bill means...and punctuated with his tasteless Code-Pink like obnoxious flag-draped coffin commentary he demands an answer!!!

bwahahahaha!

Stupid is as stupid does.

Pork should be stopped and Boehner is on the right track.

To object to starting an initiative that is right based on based performance-including Pelosi and Starkist Tuna-among other things- is to be willfully blind about the problems we have that will never be solved by Terry's socialist approach ...Boehner is suggesting reforms and I wholeheartedly support that.

He has his own horrific blog.

We get it. You don't like him. You have done a good job being a lefty talking point sound board. Now go get your own blog and ramble.

You do not score points for highjacking posts.

If you really believed what you say you do, you might come up with some original ideas (like moving out of Mom's basement)... When you do, you can start your own blog.

I have never understood the "enlightened Progressives" (read: lemming liberals) who do nothing but trolling leaving stock comments that where told to them.

Ass.

1.) You lied in saying that I will never ever put my ass on the line to serve my country. That's your hope, because you hate people serving their country.

2.) There is plenty of evidence that Saddam was hiding WMDs and had connections to al-Qaeda.

3.) I'm sorry that I don't consult with you before making major life decisions, and as I've said, all options are on the table. PROVE I'M LYING ABOUT THAT NOW or I have no reason to further this debate.

4.) You're using a factless emotional appeal designed to appeal to the heart instead of the mind. This from a man who claims to pursue logic.

Did Boehner object to Bush's earmarks?

Yes or no?

1) What "lie" have I told, little worm? Name it. NOW.

2) What active programs for development of WMDs was Saddam Hussein's Iraq pursuing when we invaded, idiot child? Supply evidence for your claim. NOW.

3) You're lying, and you know it. You've already backtracked on your supposed intentions to enlist. You left yourself an escape hatch, and you'll take it.

4) I want you to stand up and tell someone who has suffered a loss that their dead loved one was a "small price". You ain't got the balls to say that to someone's face, coward.

Hey Meat -

I'm afraid you're way off-base on Boehner, who has not only led the charge against earmarks with his words, but also his actions in that he originally campaigned on the statement that he would not pursue earmarks for his district. I'm in that district - and I am personally happy not to be the recipient of the pork that is tearing down this country. If all our congressman took Boehner's lead, pork wouldn't be a problem. I just don't see what point you are trying to make here. So why don't you just take your comments somewhere else?

1.) Congressman Boehner chose to blog on this site, which I appreciate, but the Congressman is busy contributing to our country and should not be expected to answer his lying science-fiction writing critics here.

2.) Saddam Hussein was actively pursuing WMDs.

3.) Not true, and all options including the military are still on the table for me as I've made clear in the past.

4.) You want me to harass families who have paid the sacrifice now? You're using a disgusting moral play that relies solely on emotion and not on facts. Of course.

What are you going to tell them, Justin?

WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO TELL THEM?

1) Why isn't Boehner answering this question? Does he really need you to run interference for him, little boy?

2) You're still riding the WMD justification for the war, even after the claims of Bushco that Saddam had WMDs have been utterly demolished, Justin? Do you ever bother to examine the facts, or do you just really really enjoy making a complete fool of yourself?

3) Your cavalier dismissal of the dead is sickening, Justin, since we all know that you will never ever ever put your lily-white ass on the line in service to this country.

4) Knowing that, I challenge you: Go find a nearby family who lost a loved one in Iraq, and tell them that their loss has been a "small price" to reassure you that there are no bad guys hiding under your bed. Report back on their response.

I absolutely agree with Congressman Boehner that in the long-term, our investment will be a small price. In the long-term, we'd be facing a more dangerous regime with the very real potential of funneling weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups, and if we pulled out now, we'd face another al-Qaeda training ground similar to Afghanistan cerca 2000. Deaths are horrific, but when they are made in sacrifice to protect the American people from even more death and destruction, they are a necessary sacrifice. The number of Americans lost in Iraq vs. the potential number from a funneled nuclear weapon? A small price.

Hey Boehner:

Do you still believe that dead American soldiers are "a small price" to pay for Bush's belligerent adventurism?

For that matter, Justin, do you agree with Boehner about the price of our occupation of Iraq?

Mr. Boehner:

Last year, the web site "The Carpetbagger Report" carried the following report:

--- begin quote ---

Way back in April, during the first round of debate on war funding, Bush excoriated lawmakers for “spend[ing] billions of dollars on pork barrel projects and spending that are [sic] completely unrelated to this war.” It was one of his more disingenuous complaints -- the president’s own war funding proposal included funds for federal prisons, Kosovo debt relief, flood control on the Mississippi, and nutrition programs in Africa, among other things.

Similarly, just a couple of weeks ago, Bush devoted his radio address to complaining about federal spending. “Earmarks are spending provisions that are slipped into bills by individual members of Congress, often at the last hour and without discussion or debate,” the president said. “It’s not surprising that this leads to unnecessary Federal spending.”

It’s why the White House should probably find this embarrassing.

Just a few months after blasting the congressional practice of diverting millions in taxpayer dollars to pet projects, President Bush has slipped into current legislation more than 100 so-called “earmarks” worth over $1 billion — including nearly $6 million for work on the White House. […]

The president’s earmarks, for projects including national park improvements, land purchases and new government facilities, have drawn unusual on-the-record criticism from Republican lawmakers, who typically eschew public displays of disaffection with the White House.

“It would appear the administration likes earmarks from their perspective,” Rep. Robert Aderholt, R-Ala., told the Hill newspaper, which first reported the White House earmarks. Aderholt is a member of the House Appropriations Committee. He termed the White House stance as “inconsistent,” though another Republican, Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho, told the paper it was “duplicity.”

The Bush White House? Duplicitous? Never.

--- end quote ---

So, Mr. Boehner, my question to you is: Did you personally at any time decry or object to the earmarks inserted into the budget legislation last year by the Bush administration?

The irony of Pelosi's sudden concern over earmarks, and her suggested freeze on earmarks, is that a couple weeks ago the Majority Democrats decided to shut down the House Republican's earmark reform website, http://www.earmarkreform.house.gov. This site served as a hub for news and information regarding House GOP efforts to hold the Democrat Majority to its promises to overhaul the taxpayer funded earmark system. There was no explanation given for the actions of the Democrats, and came only days after an independent report revealed that the freshman Democratic class in the House had been showered in pork by the leaders of the majority. Rather than shut down the earmark process at that time, the Democrats preferred to decline acting upon their promises, and shut down the site designed to provide news and information on the subject of earmarks. The site had been launced on February 12, 2008.