Community > Politics, Current News & Events

Topic: Another Obama Earmark or Not?
AndrewAV Joined Sun 09/28/08 Posts: 1186	Tue 06/16/09 10:15 PM
Why do I have to keep bringing this up. Earmarking money is the way they set it up for funds to go to a certain place. Not all earmarks are bad. Pork on the other hand does seem to be a bad thing and Obama did say something about pork but he cannot say that he will not have earmarks because they are necessary to assign funds to almost all programs. Earmarks are provisions appropriated for individual projects and/or districts. Pork is an appropriation brought in for the sole purpose of bringing that money in to fund the district or a project in that district. They're one and the same. plain and simple. there is that very faint distinction, but if a project has been proposed for a power plant in illinois, i doubt anyone but those in that area are really going to give a s*it about it. It's pork/earmarks. Face it. He's a politician. Lying is second nature to him. Just like the stimulus bill, just like the appropriations bill. It's never going to stop. I guess anyone can call an earmark pork if they want to but the distinction is very clear. Not all earmarks are pork and not all pork are earmarks. than what is the actual difference and how is this an earmark but not pork?

Winx Joined Fri 08/31/07 Posts: 39051	Tue 06/16/09 10:16 PM
Why do I have to keep bringing this up. Earmarking money is the way they set it up for funds to go to a certain place. Not all earmarks are bad. Pork on the other hand does seem to be a bad thing and Obama did say something about pork but he cannot say that he will not have earmarks because they are necessary to assign funds to almost all programs. Earmarks are provisions appropriated for individual projects and/or districts. Pork is an appropriation brought in for the sole purpose of bringing that money in to fund the district or a project in that district. They're one and the same. plain and simple. there is that very faint distinction, but if a project has been proposed for a power plant in illinois, i doubt anyone but those in that area are really going to give a s*it about it. It's pork/earmarks. Face it. He's a politician. Lying is second nature to him. Just like the stimulus bill, just like the appropriations bill. It's never going to stop. I guess anyone can call an earmark pork if they want to but the distinction is very clear. Not all earmarks are pork and not all pork are earmarks. I know! It's earmarks when one's own district needs the money and pork when it's someone else's need.

AndrewAV Joined Sun 09/28/08 Posts: 1186	Tue 06/16/09 10:18 PM
Why do I have to keep bringing this up. Earmarking money is the way they set it up for funds to go to a certain place. Not all earmarks are bad. Pork on the other hand does seem to be a bad thing and Obama did say something about pork but he cannot say that he will not have earmarks because they are necessary to assign funds to almost all programs. Earmarks are provisions appropriated for individual projects and/or districts. Pork is an appropriation brought in for the sole purpose of bringing that money in to fund the district or a project in that district. They're one and the same. plain and simple. there is that very faint distinction, but if a project has been proposed for a power plant in illinois, i doubt anyone but those in that area are really going to give a s*it about it. It's pork/earmarks. Face it. He's a politician. Lying is second nature to him. Just like the stimulus bill, just like the appropriations bill. It's never going to stop. I guess anyone can call an earmark pork if they want to but the distinction is very clear. Not all earmarks are pork and not all pork are earmarks. I know! It's earmarks when one's own district needs the money and pork when it's someone else's need. my district or not, i think it's all a waste. this should be the responsibility of the states and local government. I'm tired of my tax dollars from here in California going to build a power plant in illinois. I'd rather pay my state rate to the feds and pay my 20% to the state so it all ends up here.

Dragoness Joined Wed 10/17/07 Posts: 23320	Tue 06/16/09 10:23 PM
Just finished a letter to the President on this matter.

AndrewAV Joined Sun 09/28/08 Posts: 1186	Tue 06/16/09 10:24 PM
Just finished a letter to the President on this matter. so can you tell me how this is not pork?

yellowrose10 Joined Tue 12/11/07 Posts: 52804	Tue 06/16/09 10:30 PM
"I’m proud that we passed the recovery plan free of earmarks, and I want to pass a budget next year that ensures that each dollar we spend reflects only our most important national priorities."

Dragoness Joined Wed 10/17/07 Posts: 23320	Tue 06/16/09 10:31 PM
Definition Typically, "pork" involves funding for government programs whose economic or service benefits are concentrated in a particular area but whose costs are spread among all taxpayers. Public works projects, certain national defense spending projects, and agricultural subsidies are the most commonly cited examples. Citizens Against Government Waste[6] outlines seven criteria by which spending can be classified as "pork": Requested by only one chamber of Congress; Not specifically authorized; Not competitively awarded; Not requested by the President; Greatly exceeds the President’s budget request or the previous year’s funding; Not the subject of congressional hearings; or Serves only a local or special interest. OMB Guidance to Agencies on Definition of Earmarks OMB defines "earmarks" as "funds provided by the Congress for projects, programs, or grants where the purported congressional direction (whether in statutory text, report language, or other communication) circumvents otherwise applicable merit-based or competitive allocation processes, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the executive branch to manage its statutory and constitutional responsibilities pertaining to the funds allocation process." Earmarks vs. Unrequested Funding. At the broadest level, unrequested funding is any additional funding provided by the Congress -- in either bill or report language -- for activities/projects/programs not requested by the Administration. Earmarks are a subset of unrequested funding. The distinction between earmarks and unrequested funding is programmatic control or lack thereof of in the allocation process. Earmarks and Programmatic "Control." If the congressional direction accompanying a project/program/funding in an appropriations bill or report or other communication purports to affect the ability of the Administration to control critical aspects of the awards process for the project/program/funding, this IS an earmark. Note: The definition of "control critical aspects" includes specification of the location or recipient or otherwise circumventing the merit-based or competitive allocation process and may be program specific. However, if the Congress adds funding and the Administration retains control over the awards process for the project/program/funding, it is NOT an earmark; it is unrequested funding. Earmarks Include: Add-ons. If the Administration asks for $100 million for formula grants, for example, and Congress provides $110 million and places restrictions (such as site-specific locations or adds additional project goals) on the additional $10 million, the additional $10 million is counted as an earmark. However, if the additional funding is to speed up the completion of a project with no restrictions this is NOT an earmark. Carve-outs. If the Administration asks for $100 million and Congress provides $100 million but places restrictions on some portion of the funding, the restricted portion is counted as an earmark. Funding provisions that do not name a recipient, but are so specific that only one recipient can qualify for funding is counted as an earmark. What I read on both of these is that the president has almost nothing to do with both earmarks and pork. So why does he catch the blame for them?

adj4u Joined Sun 04/08/07 Posts: 21254	Tue 06/16/09 10:36 PM Edited by adj4u on Tue 06/16/09 10:48 PM
a clean-coal power plant to be built in Illinois what stateis obama from and what state was he a senator in sounds like pork to me just a thought but hey what do i know

AndrewAV Joined Sun 09/28/08 Posts: 1186	Tue 06/16/09 10:42 PM
Definition Typically, "pork" involves funding for government programs whose economic or service benefits are concentrated in a particular area but whose costs are spread among all taxpayers. Public works projects, certain national defense spending projects, and agricultural subsidies are the most commonly cited examples. Citizens Against Government Waste[6] outlines seven criteria by which spending can be classified as "pork": Requested by only one chamber of Congress; Not specifically authorized; Not competitively awarded; Not requested by the President; Greatly exceeds the President’s budget request or the previous year’s funding; Not the subject of congressional hearings; or Serves only a local or special interest. OMB Guidance to Agencies on Definition of Earmarks OMB defines "earmarks" as "funds provided by the Congress for projects, programs, or grants where the purported congressional direction (whether in statutory text, report language, or other communication) circumvents otherwise applicable merit-based or competitive allocation processes, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the executive branch to manage its statutory and constitutional responsibilities pertaining to the funds allocation process." Earmarks vs. Unrequested Funding. At the broadest level, unrequested funding is any additional funding provided by the Congress -- in either bill or report language -- for activities/projects/programs not requested by the Administration. Earmarks are a subset of unrequested funding. The distinction between earmarks and unrequested funding is programmatic control or lack thereof of in the allocation process. Earmarks and Programmatic "Control." If the congressional direction accompanying a project/program/funding in an appropriations bill or report or other communication purports to affect the ability of the Administration to control critical aspects of the awards process for the project/program/funding, this IS an earmark. Note: The definition of "control critical aspects" includes specification of the location or recipient or otherwise circumventing the merit-based or competitive allocation process and may be program specific. However, if the Congress adds funding and the Administration retains control over the awards process for the project/program/funding, it is NOT an earmark; it is unrequested funding. Earmarks Include: Add-ons. If the Administration asks for $100 million for formula grants, for example, and Congress provides $110 million and places restrictions (such as site-specific locations or adds additional project goals) on the additional $10 million, the additional $10 million is counted as an earmark. However, if the additional funding is to speed up the completion of a project with no restrictions this is NOT an earmark. Carve-outs. If the Administration asks for $100 million and Congress provides $100 million but places restrictions on some portion of the funding, the restricted portion is counted as an earmark. Funding provisions that do not name a recipient, but are so specific that only one recipient can qualify for funding is counted as an earmark. What I read on both of these is that the president has almost nothing to do with both earmarks and pork. So why does he catch the blame for them? do you really believe that anyone but someone from illinois would recommend that that plant be built? do you really think that anyone but good old harry would suggest a high-speed rail to vegas be built? these are proposed by those that benefit the most. Therefore, they are pork. Obama said that this project would be sacrificed. obviously, it's not. it's from his home district. that to me is only slightly suspicious. if he was really against earmarks/pork, he'd say hey, this is wrong, but he's not. that is why I blame him. he may not be directly related, but he's definitely an accessory. either way, he's guilty.

Dragoness Joined Wed 10/17/07 Posts: 23320	Tue 06/16/09 10:45 PM
Definition Typically, "pork" involves funding for government programs whose economic or service benefits are concentrated in a particular area but whose costs are spread among all taxpayers. Public works projects, certain national defense spending projects, and agricultural subsidies are the most commonly cited examples. Citizens Against Government Waste[6] outlines seven criteria by which spending can be classified as "pork": Requested by only one chamber of Congress; Not specifically authorized; Not competitively awarded; Not requested by the President; Greatly exceeds the President’s budget request or the previous year’s funding; Not the subject of congressional hearings; or Serves only a local or special interest. OMB Guidance to Agencies on Definition of Earmarks OMB defines "earmarks" as "funds provided by the Congress for projects, programs, or grants where the purported congressional direction (whether in statutory text, report language, or other communication) circumvents otherwise applicable merit-based or competitive allocation processes, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the executive branch to manage its statutory and constitutional responsibilities pertaining to the funds allocation process." Earmarks vs. Unrequested Funding. At the broadest level, unrequested funding is any additional funding provided by the Congress -- in either bill or report language -- for activities/projects/programs not requested by the Administration. Earmarks are a subset of unrequested funding. The distinction between earmarks and unrequested funding is programmatic control or lack thereof of in the allocation process. Earmarks and Programmatic "Control." If the congressional direction accompanying a project/program/funding in an appropriations bill or report or other communication purports to affect the ability of the Administration to control critical aspects of the awards process for the project/program/funding, this IS an earmark. Note: The definition of "control critical aspects" includes specification of the location or recipient or otherwise circumventing the merit-based or competitive allocation process and may be program specific. However, if the Congress adds funding and the Administration retains control over the awards process for the project/program/funding, it is NOT an earmark; it is unrequested funding. Earmarks Include: Add-ons. If the Administration asks for $100 million for formula grants, for example, and Congress provides $110 million and places restrictions (such as site-specific locations or adds additional project goals) on the additional $10 million, the additional $10 million is counted as an earmark. However, if the additional funding is to speed up the completion of a project with no restrictions this is NOT an earmark. Carve-outs. If the Administration asks for $100 million and Congress provides $100 million but places restrictions on some portion of the funding, the restricted portion is counted as an earmark. Funding provisions that do not name a recipient, but are so specific that only one recipient can qualify for funding is counted as an earmark. What I read on both of these is that the president has almost nothing to do with both earmarks and pork. So why does he catch the blame for them? do you really believe that anyone but someone from illinois would recommend that that plant be built? do you really think that anyone but good old harry would suggest a high-speed rail to vegas be built? these are proposed by those that benefit the most. Therefore, they are pork. Obama said that this project would be sacrificed. obviously, it's not. it's from his home district. that to me is only slightly suspicious. if he was really against earmarks/pork, he'd say hey, this is wrong, but he's not. that is why I blame him. he may not be directly related, but he's definitely an accessory. either way, he's guilty. Sounds like you don't like him so he is the scape goat, which is fine but don't expect support for it.

AndrewAV Joined Sun 09/28/08 Posts: 1186	Tue 06/16/09 10:47 PM
Definition Typically, "pork" involves funding for government programs whose economic or service benefits are concentrated in a particular area but whose costs are spread among all taxpayers. Public works projects, certain national defense spending projects, and agricultural subsidies are the most commonly cited examples. Citizens Against Government Waste[6] outlines seven criteria by which spending can be classified as "pork": Requested by only one chamber of Congress; Not specifically authorized; Not competitively awarded; Not requested by the President; Greatly exceeds the President’s budget request or the previous year’s funding; Not the subject of congressional hearings; or Serves only a local or special interest. OMB Guidance to Agencies on Definition of Earmarks OMB defines "earmarks" as "funds provided by the Congress for projects, programs, or grants where the purported congressional direction (whether in statutory text, report language, or other communication) circumvents otherwise applicable merit-based or competitive allocation processes, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the executive branch to manage its statutory and constitutional responsibilities pertaining to the funds allocation process." Earmarks vs. Unrequested Funding. At the broadest level, unrequested funding is any additional funding provided by the Congress -- in either bill or report language -- for activities/projects/programs not requested by the Administration. Earmarks are a subset of unrequested funding. The distinction between earmarks and unrequested funding is programmatic control or lack thereof of in the allocation process. Earmarks and Programmatic "Control." If the congressional direction accompanying a project/program/funding in an appropriations bill or report or other communication purports to affect the ability of the Administration to control critical aspects of the awards process for the project/program/funding, this IS an earmark. Note: The definition of "control critical aspects" includes specification of the location or recipient or otherwise circumventing the merit-based or competitive allocation process and may be program specific. However, if the Congress adds funding and the Administration retains control over the awards process for the project/program/funding, it is NOT an earmark; it is unrequested funding. Earmarks Include: Add-ons. If the Administration asks for $100 million for formula grants, for example, and Congress provides $110 million and places restrictions (such as site-specific locations or adds additional project goals) on the additional $10 million, the additional $10 million is counted as an earmark. However, if the additional funding is to speed up the completion of a project with no restrictions this is NOT an earmark. Carve-outs. If the Administration asks for $100 million and Congress provides $100 million but places restrictions on some portion of the funding, the restricted portion is counted as an earmark. Funding provisions that do not name a recipient, but are so specific that only one recipient can qualify for funding is counted as an earmark. What I read on both of these is that the president has almost nothing to do with both earmarks and pork. So why does he catch the blame for them? do you really believe that anyone but someone from illinois would recommend that that plant be built? do you really think that anyone but good old harry would suggest a high-speed rail to vegas be built? these are proposed by those that benefit the most. Therefore, they are pork. Obama said that this project would be sacrificed. obviously, it's not. it's from his home district. that to me is only slightly suspicious. if he was really against earmarks/pork, he'd say hey, this is wrong, but he's not. that is why I blame him. he may not be directly related, but he's definitely an accessory. either way, he's guilty. Sounds like you don't like him so he is the scape goat, which is fine but don't expect support for it. oh f*cking hell. don't cop out of it. please, tell me where I'm wrong. yes I don't like the guy. yes, i didn't like bush. yes, i didn't like clinton. that changes nothing in this. Please, tell me how this is not pork in your own words.

Dragoness Joined Wed 10/17/07 Posts: 23320	Tue 06/16/09 10:51 PM
Definition Typically, "pork" involves funding for government programs whose economic or service benefits are concentrated in a particular area but whose costs are spread among all taxpayers. Public works projects, certain national defense spending projects, and agricultural subsidies are the most commonly cited examples. Citizens Against Government Waste[6] outlines seven criteria by which spending can be classified as "pork": Requested by only one chamber of Congress; Not specifically authorized; Not competitively awarded; Not requested by the President; Greatly exceeds the President’s budget request or the previous year’s funding; Not the subject of congressional hearings; or Serves only a local or special interest. OMB Guidance to Agencies on Definition of Earmarks OMB defines "earmarks" as "funds provided by the Congress for projects, programs, or grants where the purported congressional direction (whether in statutory text, report language, or other communication) circumvents otherwise applicable merit-based or competitive allocation processes, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the executive branch to manage its statutory and constitutional responsibilities pertaining to the funds allocation process." Earmarks vs. Unrequested Funding. At the broadest level, unrequested funding is any additional funding provided by the Congress -- in either bill or report language -- for activities/projects/programs not requested by the Administration. Earmarks are a subset of unrequested funding. The distinction between earmarks and unrequested funding is programmatic control or lack thereof of in the allocation process. Earmarks and Programmatic "Control." If the congressional direction accompanying a project/program/funding in an appropriations bill or report or other communication purports to affect the ability of the Administration to control critical aspects of the awards process for the project/program/funding, this IS an earmark. Note: The definition of "control critical aspects" includes specification of the location or recipient or otherwise circumventing the merit-based or competitive allocation process and may be program specific. However, if the Congress adds funding and the Administration retains control over the awards process for the project/program/funding, it is NOT an earmark; it is unrequested funding. Earmarks Include: Add-ons. If the Administration asks for $100 million for formula grants, for example, and Congress provides $110 million and places restrictions (such as site-specific locations or adds additional project goals) on the additional $10 million, the additional $10 million is counted as an earmark. However, if the additional funding is to speed up the completion of a project with no restrictions this is NOT an earmark. Carve-outs. If the Administration asks for $100 million and Congress provides $100 million but places restrictions on some portion of the funding, the restricted portion is counted as an earmark. Funding provisions that do not name a recipient, but are so specific that only one recipient can qualify for funding is counted as an earmark. What I read on both of these is that the president has almost nothing to do with both earmarks and pork. So why does he catch the blame for them? do you really believe that anyone but someone from illinois would recommend that that plant be built? do you really think that anyone but good old harry would suggest a high-speed rail to vegas be built? these are proposed by those that benefit the most. Therefore, they are pork. Obama said that this project would be sacrificed. obviously, it's not. it's from his home district. that to me is only slightly suspicious. if he was really against earmarks/pork, he'd say hey, this is wrong, but he's not. that is why I blame him. he may not be directly related, but he's definitely an accessory. either way, he's guilty. Sounds like you don't like him so he is the scape goat, which is fine but don't expect support for it. oh f*cking hell. don't cop out of it. please, tell me where I'm wrong. yes I don't like the guy. yes, i didn't like bush. yes, i didn't like clinton. that changes nothing in this. Please, tell me how this is not pork in your own words. by the definition given, Obama cannot suggest it, or it is not pork nor an earmark if he does. My personal opinion is that I do not like coal for energy because it is too dirty for my standards of clean regardless. So I do not support this at any level no matter who suggested it or supports it. I cannot call it an earmark or pork from the definitions of both.

adj4u Joined Sun 04/08/07 Posts: 21254	Tue 06/16/09 10:58 PM
Definition Typically, "pork" involves funding for government programs whose economic or service benefits are concentrated in a particular area but whose costs are spread among all taxpayers. Public works projects, certain national defense spending projects, and agricultural subsidies are the most commonly cited examples. Citizens Against Government Waste[6] outlines seven criteria by which spending can be classified as "pork": Requested by only one chamber of Congress; Not specifically authorized; Not competitively awarded; Not requested by the President; Greatly exceeds the President’s budget request or the previous year’s funding; Not the subject of congressional hearings; or Serves only a local or special interest. OMB Guidance to Agencies on Definition of Earmarks OMB defines "earmarks" as "funds provided by the Congress for projects, programs, or grants where the purported congressional direction (whether in statutory text, report language, or other communication) circumvents otherwise applicable merit-based or competitive allocation processes, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the executive branch to manage its statutory and constitutional responsibilities pertaining to the funds allocation process." Earmarks vs. Unrequested Funding. At the broadest level, unrequested funding is any additional funding provided by the Congress -- in either bill or report language -- for activities/projects/programs not requested by the Administration. Earmarks are a subset of unrequested funding. The distinction between earmarks and unrequested funding is programmatic control or lack thereof of in the allocation process. Earmarks and Programmatic "Control." If the congressional direction accompanying a project/program/funding in an appropriations bill or report or other communication purports to affect the ability of the Administration to control critical aspects of the awards process for the project/program/funding, this IS an earmark. Note: The definition of "control critical aspects" includes specification of the location or recipient or otherwise circumventing the merit-based or competitive allocation process and may be program specific. However, if the Congress adds funding and the Administration retains control over the awards process for the project/program/funding, it is NOT an earmark; it is unrequested funding. Earmarks Include: Add-ons. If the Administration asks for $100 million for formula grants, for example, and Congress provides $110 million and places restrictions (such as site-specific locations or adds additional project goals) on the additional $10 million, the additional $10 million is counted as an earmark. However, if the additional funding is to speed up the completion of a project with no restrictions this is NOT an earmark. Carve-outs. If the Administration asks for $100 million and Congress provides $100 million but places restrictions on some portion of the funding, the restricted portion is counted as an earmark. Funding provisions that do not name a recipient, but are so specific that only one recipient can qualify for funding is counted as an earmark. What I read on both of these is that the president has almost nothing to do with both earmarks and pork. So why does he catch the blame for them? do you really believe that anyone but someone from illinois would recommend that that plant be built? do you really think that anyone but good old harry would suggest a high-speed rail to vegas be built? these are proposed by those that benefit the most. Therefore, they are pork. Obama said that this project would be sacrificed. obviously, it's not. it's from his home district. that to me is only slightly suspicious. if he was really against earmarks/pork, he'd say hey, this is wrong, but he's not. that is why I blame him. he may not be directly related, but he's definitely an accessory. either way, he's guilty. Sounds like you don't like him so he is the scape goat, which is fine but don't expect support for it. oh f*cking hell. don't cop out of it. please, tell me where I'm wrong. yes I don't like the guy. yes, i didn't like bush. yes, i didn't like clinton. that changes nothing in this. Please, tell me how this is not pork in your own words. by the definition given, Obama cannot suggest it, or it is not pork nor an earmark if he does. My personal opinion is that I do not like coal for energy because it is too dirty for my standards of clean regardless. So I do not support this at any level no matter who suggested it or supports it. I cannot call it an earmark or pork from the definitions of both. the onlty place ready to build do you think it only took six months to get it ready this project was started when he was a senator him becoming president does not change that thus it is pork

Dragoness Joined Wed 10/17/07 Posts: 23320	Tue 06/16/09 11:00 PM
Definition Typically, "pork" involves funding for government programs whose economic or service benefits are concentrated in a particular area but whose costs are spread among all taxpayers. Public works projects, certain national defense spending projects, and agricultural subsidies are the most commonly cited examples. Citizens Against Government Waste[6] outlines seven criteria by which spending can be classified as "pork": Requested by only one chamber of Congress; Not specifically authorized; Not competitively awarded; Not requested by the President; Greatly exceeds the President’s budget request or the previous year’s funding; Not the subject of congressional hearings; or Serves only a local or special interest. OMB Guidance to Agencies on Definition of Earmarks OMB defines "earmarks" as "funds provided by the Congress for projects, programs, or grants where the purported congressional direction (whether in statutory text, report language, or other communication) circumvents otherwise applicable merit-based or competitive allocation processes, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the executive branch to manage its statutory and constitutional responsibilities pertaining to the funds allocation process." Earmarks vs. Unrequested Funding. At the broadest level, unrequested funding is any additional funding provided by the Congress -- in either bill or report language -- for activities/projects/programs not requested by the Administration. Earmarks are a subset of unrequested funding. The distinction between earmarks and unrequested funding is programmatic control or lack thereof of in the allocation process. Earmarks and Programmatic "Control." If the congressional direction accompanying a project/program/funding in an appropriations bill or report or other communication purports to affect the ability of the Administration to control critical aspects of the awards process for the project/program/funding, this IS an earmark. Note: The definition of "control critical aspects" includes specification of the location or recipient or otherwise circumventing the merit-based or competitive allocation process and may be program specific. However, if the Congress adds funding and the Administration retains control over the awards process for the project/program/funding, it is NOT an earmark; it is unrequested funding. Earmarks Include: Add-ons. If the Administration asks for $100 million for formula grants, for example, and Congress provides $110 million and places restrictions (such as site-specific locations or adds additional project goals) on the additional $10 million, the additional $10 million is counted as an earmark. However, if the additional funding is to speed up the completion of a project with no restrictions this is NOT an earmark. Carve-outs. If the Administration asks for $100 million and Congress provides $100 million but places restrictions on some portion of the funding, the restricted portion is counted as an earmark. Funding provisions that do not name a recipient, but are so specific that only one recipient can qualify for funding is counted as an earmark. What I read on both of these is that the president has almost nothing to do with both earmarks and pork. So why does he catch the blame for them? do you really believe that anyone but someone from illinois would recommend that that plant be built? do you really think that anyone but good old harry would suggest a high-speed rail to vegas be built? these are proposed by those that benefit the most. Therefore, they are pork. Obama said that this project would be sacrificed. obviously, it's not. it's from his home district. that to me is only slightly suspicious. if he was really against earmarks/pork, he'd say hey, this is wrong, but he's not. that is why I blame him. he may not be directly related, but he's definitely an accessory. either way, he's guilty. Sounds like you don't like him so he is the scape goat, which is fine but don't expect support for it. oh f*cking hell. don't cop out of it. please, tell me where I'm wrong. yes I don't like the guy. yes, i didn't like bush. yes, i didn't like clinton. that changes nothing in this. Please, tell me how this is not pork in your own words. by the definition given, Obama cannot suggest it, or it is not pork nor an earmark if he does. My personal opinion is that I do not like coal for energy because it is too dirty for my standards of clean regardless. So I do not support this at any level no matter who suggested it or supports it. I cannot call it an earmark or pork from the definitions of both. the onlty place ready to build do you think it only took six months to get it ready this project was started when he was a senator him becoming president does not change that thus it is pork Like I said anybody can call anything pork that they want to, it doesn't make it so. So call it what you want but it doesn't fit the definitions given.

Dragoness Joined Wed 10/17/07 Posts: 23320	Tue 06/16/09 11:02 PM
I am off to bed, good night everyone.

yellowrose10 Joined Tue 12/11/07 Posts: 52804	Tue 06/16/09 11:03 PM
didn't he say no earmarks in his campaign promise???? I know he seemed proud for a recovery play with no earmarks

adj4u Joined Sun 04/08/07 Posts: 21254	Tue 06/16/09 11:08 PM
Definition Typically, "pork" involves funding for government programs whose economic or service benefits are concentrated in a particular area but whose costs are spread among all taxpayers. Public works projects, certain national defense spending projects, and agricultural subsidies are the most commonly cited examples. Citizens Against Government Waste[6] outlines seven criteria by which spending can be classified as "pork": Requested by only one chamber of Congress; Not specifically authorized; Not competitively awarded; Not requested by the President; Greatly exceeds the President’s budget request or the previous year’s funding; Not the subject of congressional hearings; or Serves only a local or special interest. OMB Guidance to Agencies on Definition of Earmarks OMB defines "earmarks" as "funds provided by the Congress for projects, programs, or grants where the purported congressional direction (whether in statutory text, report language, or other communication) circumvents otherwise applicable merit-based or competitive allocation processes, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the executive branch to manage its statutory and constitutional responsibilities pertaining to the funds allocation process." Earmarks vs. Unrequested Funding. At the broadest level, unrequested funding is any additional funding provided by the Congress -- in either bill or report language -- for activities/projects/programs not requested by the Administration. Earmarks are a subset of unrequested funding. The distinction between earmarks and unrequested funding is programmatic control or lack thereof of in the allocation process. Earmarks and Programmatic "Control." If the congressional direction accompanying a project/program/funding in an appropriations bill or report or other communication purports to affect the ability of the Administration to control critical aspects of the awards process for the project/program/funding, this IS an earmark. Note: The definition of "control critical aspects" includes specification of the location or recipient or otherwise circumventing the merit-based or competitive allocation process and may be program specific. However, if the Congress adds funding and the Administration retains control over the awards process for the project/program/funding, it is NOT an earmark; it is unrequested funding. Earmarks Include: Add-ons. If the Administration asks for $100 million for formula grants, for example, and Congress provides $110 million and places restrictions (such as site-specific locations or adds additional project goals) on the additional $10 million, the additional $10 million is counted as an earmark. However, if the additional funding is to speed up the completion of a project with no restrictions this is NOT an earmark. Carve-outs. If the Administration asks for $100 million and Congress provides $100 million but places restrictions on some portion of the funding, the restricted portion is counted as an earmark. Funding provisions that do not name a recipient, but are so specific that only one recipient can qualify for funding is counted as an earmark. What I read on both of these is that the president has almost nothing to do with both earmarks and pork. So why does he catch the blame for them? do you really believe that anyone but someone from illinois would recommend that that plant be built? do you really think that anyone but good old harry would suggest a high-speed rail to vegas be built? these are proposed by those that benefit the most. Therefore, they are pork. Obama said that this project would be sacrificed. obviously, it's not. it's from his home district. that to me is only slightly suspicious. if he was really against earmarks/pork, he'd say hey, this is wrong, but he's not. that is why I blame him. he may not be directly related, but he's definitely an accessory. either way, he's guilty. Sounds like you don't like him so he is the scape goat, which is fine but don't expect support for it. oh f*cking hell. don't cop out of it. please, tell me where I'm wrong. yes I don't like the guy. yes, i didn't like bush. yes, i didn't like clinton. that changes nothing in this. Please, tell me how this is not pork in your own words. by the definition given, Obama cannot suggest it, or it is not pork nor an earmark if he does. My personal opinion is that I do not like coal for energy because it is too dirty for my standards of clean regardless. So I do not support this at any level no matter who suggested it or supports it. I cannot call it an earmark or pork from the definitions of both. the onlty place ready to build do you think it only took six months to get it ready this project was started when he was a senator him becoming president does not change that thus it is pork Like I said anybody can call anything pork that they want to, it doesn't make it so. So call it what you want but it doesn't fit the definitions given. what was the previous years funding is it greatly exceeded i bet it is thus it was a senatorial project and mire than likely exceeds last years funding fits the definition you gave the only thing is that the senator became president

adj4u Joined Sun 04/08/07 Posts: 21254	Tue 06/16/09 11:09 PM
didn't he say no earmarks in his campaign promise???? I know he seemed proud for a recovery play with no earmarks what dif does that make those have turned out to be say what you want to hear promises

yellowrose10 Joined Tue 12/11/07 Posts: 52804	Tue 06/16/09 11:29 PM
didn't he say no earmarks in his campaign promise???? I know he seemed proud for a recovery play with no earmarks what dif does that make those have turned out to be say what you want to hear promises ya think???? and people wonder why I don't like politicians

DaveyB Joined Wed 10/10/07 Posts: 18786	Wed 06/17/09 11:53 PM
didn't he say no earmarks in his campaign promise???? I know he seemed proud for a recovery play with no earmarks what dif does that make those have turned out to be say what you want to hear promises ya think???? and people wonder why I don't like politicians I don't wonder at all