Whoa!I thought it would cost a lot for those votes but 4.7 billion!


http://69.84.25.250/blogger/post/After-health-care-vote-Stupak-11-request-billions-in-earmarks.aspx

After health care vote, Stupak 11 request billions in earmarks
by DFX March 26, 2010 18:18
[link to reporting.sunlightfoundation.com]

By Anupama Narayanswamy and Bill Allison Mar 26 2010 11:14 a.m.

A day after Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., and ten other House members compromised on their pro-life position to deliver the necessary yes-votes to pass health care reform, the "Stupak 11" released their

fiscal year 2011 earmark requests, which total more than $4.7 billion--an average of $429 million worth of earmark requests for each lawmaker.

Of the eight lawmakers whose 2010 requests were available for comparison, five requested more money this week than they did a year ago: Rep. Jerry Costello, D-Ill., Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper, D-Pa., Rep. Joe Donnelly, D-Ind., Brad Ellsworth, D-Ind., Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio, and Rep. Charles Wilson, D-Ohio.

The eleven members were the focus of high level pressure by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other top Democrats because they threatened to vote against the health care reform bill, which passed the House on Sunday, March 21, by a seven vote margin. Granting earmark requests are one of the ways leadership can encourage members to vote their way.

Stupak requested more than $578 million in earmarks, including $125 million for a replacement lock on the Sault Ste. Marie, $25.6 million to build a federal courthouse in Marquette, Mich., $15 million to repaint the Mackinac Bridge and $800,000 to preserve the Quincy Mining Company smelter near Hancock in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula.

In 2009, the first year that members disclosed earmark requests, most members requested far more earmarks than were funded by the Appropriations Committee, which approves or denies requests. According to Taxpayers for Common Sense, Stupak's funded earmarks--including those he requested jointly with other members--totaled $28.6 million.

Despite a newly enacted ban on earmarks to for-profit firms, Stupak requested a total of $52 million for companies in his district out of the $65.9 million he requested from the Defense Appropriations bill.

Requests from Costello increased the most, but that was due to a $1.35 billion request to fund federal program called Impact Aid, which assists local educational agencies. Costello, along with 44 other lawmakers, signed a letter sent to the Appropriations Committee requesting the funds. Earlier this month, House Republicans decided to forgo earmarks for the 2011 appropriations process. House Democrats barred earmarks to for-profit companies, which mostly impacts contractors seeking earmarks from the Defense Appropriations bill.

Universities and non-profit organizations may reap the benefits of the new policy, though for-profit companies won't be shut out. Stupak requested a $4 million earmark for the Consortium for Plant Biotechnology Research, Inc., a nonprofit corporation that researches and develops new strains of seeds--including through genetic engineering--to aid U.S. agriculture. The consortium's membership includes "39 agribusiness companies and trade associations," according to Stupak's request.

That's odd. Last I knew, bridge maintenance was supposed to be paid for by the tolls collected for using it.

What's a measly 15 million to Congress?That's like bending over to pick up a penny.They probably use 100 dollar bills for toilet paper and napkins.

There should be no earmarks. This type of patronage is disgusting.

That said, $4.7B is peanuts with respect to the health care bill.
Here's why: The U.S. spends about $4500 per capita on health care
but it does not buy us any improved care. We should pay no more
than $1500 per capita. See graph. To get an idea of the total savings
potential take 300 million Americans and multiply by the savings of
$3000 per person. Yep. That's $900 Billion dollars a year in savings.

So, I agree with you. Let's get rid of the earmarks. But do not lose
sight of the bigger issue. We can no longer afford to throw away
$900 Billion a year. We should be doing everything in our power to
save that money today. $900 Billion invested at an interest rate
of say 5% would produce $45 Billion in interest per year.



Know what I mean?

Well, you're right that there should be no earmarks ... Somebody should have reminded Dear Comrade Leader, the Lord Obama Most High (PBUH) of his promise to not allow 'em when he approved a budget with over 9,000 of 'em in it ... that said, I have no intention of letting HIM or his minions decide how long I'll live ... I'll live 'til my 90s just to pizz 'em off ...

'Change you can believe in' ... ? ... Right .... C'mon, November 2010 ...

actually, it was McCain who pledged not to allow earmarks,, but IM sure that fact is of no consequence in the debate


wasteful spending is wasteful spending whatever we call it,,,

I think not. From one of his very one State-controlled media sycophants ...

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/06/obama.stimulus/

And, in case that's not enough proof:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/03/02/2009-03-02_president_obama_to_sign_budget_despite_e.html

I know how you work. THERE's your 'data'.

thank you for finally providing some evidence at least. I was referring to the campaign OBama ran on and was unaware of any recent statement. the statement in this piece reads '"We are going to ban all earmarks, the process by which individual members insert pet projects without review' ,,,seems like those two words 'without review' leave this pledge WIDE OPEN

but you are correct that he said he would eliminate earmarks,,

Actually, the words "We are going to ban all earmarks ... " are FAR more important than the qualifier of: " ... without review ... ".

This is just typical political weasel-speak.

the earmarks are nothing. the big payoff is eliminating the middleman
and reducing our cost to that paid by the rest of the world. focusing
on the earmarks is like worrying about the penny lying on the ground while the insurance companies are stuffing dollar bills in the toilet.

not really,, If I tell my children,,' I am banning all treats',,its quite different than saying 'I am banning all treats with artificial coloring,,'

the qualifier is what defines it,, it is the whole purpose of adding a qualifier,,,,,,,,,,

but like I said, it was a vague statement that could be interpreted many ways which is why it is so simple to debate on either side

It isn't vague at all. It's dishonest, but it's not vague. He SAID " ... We are going to ban ALL earmarks ... " and then added the weasel-speak. It. Is. Irrelevant. He never MEANT to keep that pledge, and he didn't. As a now-unlicensed lawyer (because he surrendered his license to practice law, as did Meeshell), he knows quite well how to parse words equally as well as Clinton did when he challenged his questioners to tell him what the meaning of 'IS' is ... It's still weasel-speak.

you say weasel speak, I say vague,,, still leaves wiggle room for whomever....

"ALL" means "all" ... except to him.

4.7 Billion?! Weak sauce, we should have voted in a president that can spend our money quicker...really, it is just pathetic from what I've seen of Obama, he can go so much higher if he trys harder.

except when you qualify its specific meaning

for example,, All britons born in Scotland as opposed to ALL britons
or ALL military units currently deployed in Iraq, as opposed to ALL military units,,,,,etc,,,