Wash. Post's Solomon and Birnbaum showed no attempt to contact SF officials about Pelosi funding request
A May 24 Washington Post article by staff writers John Solomon and Jeffrey H. Birnbaum, headlined "In the Democratic Congress, Pork Still Gets Served," reported that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) "requested $25 million for a project to improve the waterfront in her home district of San Francisco," but her "request did not note that her family owns interests in four buildings near the proposed Pier 35 project," suggesting that Pelosi violated the requirements of a "key Democratic reform" noted in the report. The article quoted a Pelosi spokesman saying that "any suggestion of a conflict of interest is 'ridiculous' " and that "Pelosi was passing along a spending request from the Port of San Francisco and that she would not benefit from it." But Solomon and Birnbaum gave no indication that they attempted to contact officials from the Port of San Francisco to confirm the spokesman's claim. As Media Matters for America noted, blogger Greg Sargent reported May 8 that Port of San Francisco officials told him in a phone interview that they requested the waterfront improvement spending.
From Sargent's post:
But I've just gotten off the phone with the Port of San Francisco. Guess what? Its representatives told me in no uncertain terms that it requested the improvements, and that Pelosi only included the improvements at their request. Here's what Brad Benson, the special project manager of the Port of San Francisco, said to me:
"The port initiated these requests. They came entirely from the city and county of San Francisco. [The requests] were generated at the staff level. The port initiated our request through the city and county of San Francisco. Our requests were funneled through the mayor's office on up to Speaker Pelosi's office...If anyone is claiming that Pelosi initiated these requests in some way, that's completely false."
Moreover, Sargent's post on the San Francisco waterfront project was highlighted on the Post's website. In a May 10 washingtonpost.com column, Post media critic Howard Kurtz linked to Sargent's blog and noted that Sargent found the allegations against Pelosi to be "hogwash."
Further, Solomon and Birnbaum wrote that Pelosi's "request did not note that her family owns interests in four buildings near the proposed Pier 35 project." Solomon and Birnbaum did not explain their definition of "near," but a May 7 post on the Republican Study Committee's weblog, which first highlighted the Pelosi earmark, noted that four properties owned by Pelosi "and/or her husband" are "all located within 5,400 feet and 9,000 feet" of the waterfront improvement project.
From the May 24 Washington Post article:
Another key Democratic reform requires House members seeking earmarks to certify that neither they nor their spouses have any financial interest in the project.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) did just that when she requested $25 million for a project to improve the waterfront in her home district of San Francisco. Her request did not note that her family owns interests in four buildings near the proposed Pier 35 project.
Brendan Daly, a spokesman for Pelosi, said that any suggestion of a conflict of interest is "ridiculous." He said that Pelosi was passing along a spending request from the Port of San Francisco and that she would not benefit from it.
When Brendan Daily says that "she would not benefit from it" (the request), is that true? I get the fact that the request came from the Port of San Fransisco but that doesn't mean she won't benefit from it.
This is not just lazy and unprofessional from the Post- it is straight forward dishonest and meant to make her seem like a republican't
25 million of our dollars, who don't have anything to do with SF whatsoever, going to improve their waterfront........and Pelosi has rental property a mile or so away.
1) Why are we paying?
2) Of course she'll see benefits - in higher rent.
Tommy, to me this is another example of the WP and msm hate toward Speaker Pelosi. Nothing less than hate.
'we' art paying because the port probably wants to upgrade or upkeep the waterfont... think about the republicant's NOT choosing to upkeep the levees in New Orleans when the Army Corps of Engineers asked for the funds to ensure the levees could withstand a level 5 hurricane, but were only given funds up to a level 3...
Gee, I don't think making sure levees are properly functioning so a town doesn't go underwater is the same thing as putting pretty trees and comfy little benches along SF's waterfront.
I don't have a problem with Pelosi requesting the money because that's par for the course for any politician. But for her spokesperson to deny that she will benefit is a flat-out lie.
It is par for the course, sadly, but pork spending such as this should be in SF - let them pay for it, not in some House bill the rest of us are paying for.
You dont know its a flat out lie. What kind of improvements are we talking about? Are they infrastructure improvements? If so how is that going to help rent more than a mile away? Are they office buildings with tennants with long term leases? SF rent is already sky high MAYBE it will help but neither of you real estate experts have any real reason to doubt her spokesman other than you dont like her.
You're right I should have said speculation, not lie. And I'm really pretty open minded about Pelosi, I'm not a knee-jerk Pelosi hater.
Speculation would have been a reasonable word. I take you at your word about Pelosi
I'm of the same mind as you on this one (and I'm "left"). I don't see how just saying it's ridiculous and filing papers saying she won't benefit is a satisfactory refutation of the fact that she and her husband own property near by. Although, I don't know the rule either. There must be a distance defined within the rule. I wonder what that is.
Because San Francisco is only about seven miles across. If Pelosi benefits, so does the entire downtown of one of our major cities.
Fair assessment. So why did the spokesperson deny it then?
Because repairs to a cruise ship terminal probably won't do anything for rents in the neighborhood, let alone a mile or two away.
It's direct benefit that's the 'dividing line'. There's no direct benefit to a business a mile or two from the port. There is an indirect benefit to everyone in San Francisco, and if the rule required no indirect benefit, she could never recommend any earmark that would benefit all of San Fran! That's clearly unfair restrictions.
Where did you get "pretty trees and comfy little benches?"
Maybe if you knew anything about San Fran's waterfront you would understand why it needs up keep Tommy.
After the 1906 earthquake (I believe that was the correct year) the rubble was collected and dumped into the bay. This increased the total area in which the city could build, but it was unstable ground.
Without bedrock underneath that area, it is more prone to damage, from such unlikely things as earthquakes (I know, never happens in California, but just in case.) From the info I've seen so far this "improvement" project is in part an effort to strengthen this area. I don't see anything about trees and benches. I see sea walls and upgrading the integrity of the terminal building.
Ok wrong project. This one is for cruise ship piers.
I don't think Tommy would support the Terminal Building project either, if its paid for with Federal funds.
Californians pay federal taxes too. Why should they not receive any money back to develop their community? Do you not understand that the federal government spends all kind of money to improve areas of the country? How is this any different?
California actually receives less in federal spending than they pay in through tax and other revenue.
I can't even believe hypocritical right-wingers are screaming about a measly $25 million in federal spending to actually improve areas of our country, yet they don't seem to have a problem with our $500 BILLION (and counting) war in Iraq which isn't benefiting our people at all.
Hell, the feds "lost" BILLIONS of reconstruction dollars in Iraq. Where is your outrage about that?
This is yet another lame attempt to smear Pelosi with anything possible.
Typical leftist response........measly 25 million! And then bring up a totally unrelated topic to rationalize wasting our money. Classic.
Pier 35 is "rotting and damaged by termites."
Suddenly, repairing decrepit infrastructure is "wasting our money?"
So is a park's outhouse down the street from me.........do I expect another state's citizens to pay for that? Unbelievable.
Every legislator does that, Tommy. Every. Last. One. There is nothing unusual or egregious about this spending.
I don't deny that at all. I just don't use the "everyone else does it too" as a valid excuse to spend someone else's money needlessly.......spend your own.
San Franciscans pay taxes, too... isn't it "their money?"
And it's their waterfront.
Look, if we're drifting this far, I'll ask a broader question: what do you think Federal funds should be spent on?
Val,
Half of the federal budget is already spent on mandatory items such as entitlments, the other half is discretionary spending - of which the priority should be homeland security and protecting our citizens. I strongly believe in state's rights and local politicians know best when it comes to spending.
I am no legislator but every single budget item needs to be evaluated and scrutinized for it's fiscal worthiness. This particular item, although it may be important for SF, does not rise to the level of a federal expenditure, in my opinion. If you disagree, fine. This should be local, the people in Iowa needn't pay for it.
Well, fine, reasonable people can disagree on the details of expenditures. It's pretty common to see transportation-related projects paid for by the Federal government - not all local governments can afford bridges, highways, etc., so I can see the rationale.
This particular case neither encourages nor outrages me, but as I've said, I think the Federal budget is pretty out of control. Speaking as someone who just slipped up to a higher a tax bracket - I think I actually took home less last year than the one before - I definitely would like to see some more accountability.
It doesn't outrage me either, if I came across that way here.......
It just typifies what's wrong with politicians today. They think nothing of these expenditures, most likely reviewed by some staffer who got a pep talk from some lobbyist, vote for it whether it's fiscally sound or not, and then on the next.......all the while saying they don't have enough money for this or that and wanting more of ours.......that is the outrage for me.
This may be a wise expense in the long run?, I am not that smart - but I expect the people I send to represent us to be smarter than me and vigorously watch over every dime spent, that is their job. Not rubberstamp every expenditure because of some political reward it may bring them. And we need to hold their feet to the fire, otherwise they become arrogant and even more oblivious to the people to whom they are accountable.
In the end analysis, though, they work for us. They get away with what they get away with because we let them.
Again, I think public financing would help, a little anyway. I'd also like to see an ombudsman or something with the authority to review expenditures, maybe give them some kind of point score, and have Congresscritters have to publically defend their crap.
And the whole earmark thing is stupid, with millions of pet projects getting shoved into the Save the Spotted Marmoset Act of 2007.
But I'm a dirty hippie libertarian socialist, so what do I know...
But its a PORT that services a large area of the countrys goods, coming IN and going out. How much of the cheap plastic crap from Wal-Mart on the shelves of Montana came through the SF port?
While not taking exception with your thoughts on federalism...this project is not about stocking Walmart shelves or shipping Kansas corn.
In her disclosure form, Pelosi said repairs to Pier 35’s substructure were needed “to enable full cruise ship use of the pier....federal funds would go a long way toward removing the “blight” of piers that are in disrepair and would help attract a private-sector developer to invest in a plan to relocate and upgrade the city’s cruise ship terminal."
How many people who board a cruise ship in San Francisco will be residents there? How many cruise ships which simply dock there enroute from one location to another are going to be full of SF residents?
That's right, not many. If this port repair is happening to help cruise ships, it will help the overall SF economy, so any person in SF will indirectly benefit, but it will benefit those who are cruising too, which will be people from all over our nation!
And your point, my pedantic friend?
I'll repeat...I took no exception with solon's point on the benefits of federal spending...I simply corrected his assumption that this was a shipping port...
Darn, I sure wish mmfa would bring back those braille tags.
I was reinforcing the issue that this helps the whole nation, which was Solon's point. So he wasn't exactly right on how it helps the whole nation, but he was correct that it helps the whole nation.
- which was Solon's point - notthatgeorge
Sure 'nuff bub...I read his post. He is quite capable of writing his own opinions...he doesn't need anyone to explain them...but I guess everyone needs a little keyboard exercise now and then...that much is crystal clear.
Are you always this much of a jerk? Why are the rightwingers on this board such jerks?
When did they make you king so that you could judge me and tell me that I cannot echo and reinforce another person's posting here?
Feel absolutely free to write anything that you want...I have no control or desire to control your postings. However, you will be judged by your words...like it or not.
The board gets clogged up with just that kind of thinking...too many people taking personal offense at what is said on an "anonymous" blog...and making the thread about themselves rather than the topic.
Personal attacks? Laughable. How can you be personally attacked on an "anonymous" blog. A punch in the nose is a personal attack...innocuous words on a web site are no attacks.
Almost everyone is guilty to some degree of taking harsh words personally on this site...yet it's just an "anonymous" blog site where people are expressing their thoughts.
Profane and obscene language should be shunned...out of common morality...yet rough and tumble...give and take...causes no one any harm.
I don't run this website. I just show up...read the articles...and comment on the ones that interest me. I'm a big boy and can take whatever criticism that you or anyone else may have of my opinions.
Am I a saint...talking to the sinners. Nope, I'm just as guilty of rough or rude comments...but no one is harmed on an anonymous blog.
And that's all I have to say about that...
I dont know which piers do what in SF port. I DO know it is a busy port terminal for frieght that benifits the entire region. You may be right about it being for cruise ships, do you know this specific peir is used STRICTLY for cruise ships or do longshoremen work off that peir also? My point is still valid overall to answer Tommys claim that since it is SF's pier it ought to be paid for by state not federal funds. I know you made it clear you didnt disagree with that point in your post I am just reiterating the point.
I don't know if freight is also handled...but Pelosi said the money was to enhance the cruise liners.
On your federalism topic...I wonder who allowed the piers to become a blight? Was it private industry? Was it state or county or city government?
That leads to another question...if the local govt. allowed the facility to collapse...whos responsibility is it to bail them out? I'm not opposed to federal spending...if it's justified and reasonable.
Strange how you didn't scold Solon for reiterating his point, but when I reinforced his point, somehow I was out of line? Like I said, a lot of the rightwingers on this board are real jerks. Solon did the same thing I did in response to your post.
I have retired with two good pensions, and I will never have a job again, but let me clue you in to something - you will still never be my boss.
Ports are a NATIONAL asset therefore at least partly a national responsibility. I dont know if the state was negligent or if the federal share of the funds didnt come through quickly enough and they couldnt afford to pay for it locally or from the state. Neither do you. The bottom line is that Tommy is saying the port is California's and SF's that is not a valid argument.
Well hell, using your logic, I would like a refund on any federal money that went towards New Orleans, before and after. After all, its their waterfront right?
Oh, and I dont want any of my tax dollars going to any parks either.
New York, WTC all on you now. have fun flipping that bill.
And I don't want my money used to blow up any more Iraqis, unless they're attacking the local Wal-Mart.
ITS A PORT. Ports generate income FAR beyond their immediate vicinity or even state. How does the software from silicon valley get to China? The Corn from Kansas? The Lumber from Idaho? THEY GO OUT PORTS. Your not only being selfish with this view but shortsighted.
I don't know where you live Tommy, but earmarks work out to about $50million per rep and senator per year. It does'nt matter that it comes from the US treasury, it's pretty much up to each member what to spend it on. All earmarks and spending requests deserve very close scrutiny, as the Duke Cunningham case shows. What the investigators should be looking for are connections with campaign funders who will benefit directly from said improvements. I'd like to hear from someone who is on the ground there in SF, and can visit the area and tell us, will the improvements change the quality of the neighborhood 5000 and 9000 feet away? Would you agree that replacing a pier and bulkheads 5000 feet away will most likely not make any difference to the curb appeal?
LMAO!!!!
VAL: "Pier 35 is "rotting and damaged by termites."
TOMMY: "So is a park's outhouse down the street from me"
Would repairing this outhouse increase the business activity, generate jobs and increase local and FEDERAL revenue? If you think so, contact your parks department and float the idea of seeking federal money to repair your outhouse.
Better yet, why don't you start a grassroots effort? Petition city hall, organize an effort to collect public donations. Convince people in your community why it's worth the time, money and effort to give Tommy a nicer public place to S***.
Why would we need to improve that remote outhouse, when, after all, we afford Tommy access to our boards, and he has been known to S*** here from time to time?
Nice job ignoring my entire point Tommy. You obviously can't refute anything I said, so you have to attack it as the "typical leftist response".
You're a total joke. Why don't you address my point about the spending not only being necessary, or address the point that the feds send money to states for improving local areas all the time? Why do you ignore the entire argument about how, in the grand scheme of things, $25 million in federal spending is PEANUTS, especially when you look at spending for things like the Iraq War. Hell, we've LOST hundreds of millions more in Iraq than we spent on this project to improve our homeland.
The only blind partisan here is the person hyping $25 million of legitimate spending while igoring billions of dollars in completely wasted or "lost" money.
Hey BRUCE, there's a reason Media Matters included the Republican Study (whatever) weblog to end this item - it kills their own case of conflict of interest by Pelosi!
Read this again: "...four properties owned by Pelosi 'and/or her husband' are 'all located within 5,400 feet and 9,000 feet' of the waterfront improvement project." Those properties are not at all NEAR her, they're the equivalent of 18 football fields away.
And TOMMY, having property more than mile, even two miles away from another destination does NOT mean you, me, nor Pelosi and her husband would qualify as owning buildings NEAR a project site. So no, the Pelosi family does not directly benefit from. Like Greg and Kurtz says, just another anti-Pelosi story full of "hogwash."
And what a surprise, this story involved John Solomon, one of the leaders of anti-democratic stories full of hogwash.
and Pelosi has rental property a mile or so away.Getting into a semantic argument about "near" is ridiculous. It's common sense to think that if a waterfront is getting 25 million bucks of upgrades, that property within that vicinity, yes, a mile away, will reep the benefits of such improvements. That's not hard to figure.
Of course she and others that near will benefit. However, my concern is that the newsitem is being brought as if Pelosi herself is behind the request or lobbied for it with the intent to benefit.
What?
A mile radius from Pier 39 includes all of North Beach, Telegraph Hill, probably Russian Hill as well. 9,000 feet includes, like, all of downtown. So, even if it's true all those areas benefit from some improvements on the waterfront (which I think is debatable at best), then isn't that exactly what a legislator is supposed to do, benefit their consituents?
No, but to deny that she will benefit is incorrect. She (and many others) will benefit. A benefit (for the locals to enjoy a better sight, and for the tourist industry to get more money and the town and state to get more revenue) is of course intended. The Pelosi happen to have property there seems to be a coincidence and not the purpose for the request. Still .... benefit she will.
Hey! What are you doing, throwing facts in the face of common sense? It's just COMMON SENSE that Pelosi benefits from this, regardless of any reality based facts!
According to what I read she passed a request, not did the request herself. She mud that has to stick from all the coverage is that she made the request and is thus actually corupt.
This is not semantics. These are facts you're not doing well to refute.
Read Sargent again: "The port initiated these requests. They came entirely from the city and county of San Francisco. [The requests] were generated at the staff level. The port initiated our request through the city and county of San Francisco. Our requests were funneled through the mayor's office on up to Speaker Pelosi's office."
These types of requests for federal funding go on across the country all the time. Call it pork or whatever you want. But you CAN NOT single out one politician and say she (or he) benefits from such requests, especially when she didn't even ask for the money in the first place.
And the overall impact of the spending provision is that the city of SF benefits from the waterfront development project, not just a group of buildings and properties in that city or county.
Any other implications of this spending project are either outright false, political and biased. It should never have been an issue, but apparently, any spending bills, parades and other news that has the words "San Francisco" in it, THAT must mean Pelosi had something to do with it. And the right-wingers still insist there's a major liberal bias in the MSM? Yeah, right.
OOPS. "and pelosi has rental property a mile or so away" was a leftover quote that I forgot to erase. sorry about that if it confused anyone.
What Pelosi did...not why she did it...is more relevant to me.
Being able to spend 25 million dollars of taxpayer money with little oversight is disgusting. Over the last 10 years...pork/earmark attachments have increased from about 1000...to 14,000 per year.
Congressional spending is completely out of control...by both parties. Any private industry that tried to operate in the same manner would be the laughing stock of the country and very quickly out of business.
It's disgusting to continually here politicians talk about the "will of the people" and "what Americans want". I want sanity returned to congressional spending and I want our government run by "leaders" rather than political hacks.
This was not new spending. This was a legislator requesting that funds already allocated by Congress be directed to a project designated by the Port of San Francisco.
Is this the first time a member of Congress representing an urban district has sought funding for a project within a couple miles of "property they have interest in?"
Is it really?
Funds already allocated? What? Do you have the specifics?
The legislation is here.
The part mentioned by the Republican Study Committee's blog is Sec. 3020 - I don't see any authorization for new spending. Usually what they call "earmarks" are directions for agencies to direct their funds to particular projects.
This is the way our government works. The synthetic outrage about this is a little silly.
Val,
I am familiar with earmarks, and for you to say that questioning the spending of 25 million dollars, already allocated or not, is silly - goes directly to the liberal mentality of govt. spending........no big deal, it's already funded or some such nonsense.
I want Congress to be stewards of our money, I don't use already allocated funds as some excuse to piss it away for "economic revitalization" for SF's waterfront. Let the city of the county pay for it, leave the rest of us out.
But you are more than free to write a check to contribute if you feel our outrage is so silly.
Now you are changing the subject completely.
If you feel that the Federal government should not be investing in improvements in infrastructure, go ahead, make that argument. But be consistent: this is far from the only such expenditures in the Federal budget.
We were talking about whether Pelosi has conflict of interest, and there is no evidence of that. You want to move to goal posts, fine, but just don't expect to do it without anyone noticing.
Read my original post when I asked why are we paying for it? What goalposts? This should be a local/state expenditure, not federal. IMHO.
Well, the topic was about whether or not Pelosi has a conflict of interest, not Federal budgeting priorities, and you are usually the one to play Topic Cop...
You are the one to respond to Wesley about this spending, so who is changing the goal posts now?
My original post was two-fold, if you care to reread it.
I don't have a problem with topic drift, you're the one who shoves the Terms of Use in people's face when the conversation goes in directions you don't like.
I too think Federal spending is out of control. $25M to shore up an old pier in one of our major cities isn't an example of that, IMO.
"We were talking about whether Pelosi has conflict of interest, and there is no evidence of that."
But Tommy wants to talk about pork spending in general. He's stamping his feet, and claiming that he's not trying to change the subject, even though he is. He is desperately trying to move the goalposts, and trying to make this about anything besides how decrepit the journalists were in this instance to be trying to make this case that has already been demolished weeks ago.
NO, how selfish and shortsighted are you anyway. PORTS SERVICE THE ENTIRE COUNTRY.
"goes directly to the liberal mentality of govt. spending" Wow, you are really out there on that statement. I share your's and others outrage regarding the spending practices, but is a business as usual mentality of almost all politicians not just liberals. This is an issue that we should recognize that we have common ground and fight to get this spending out in the open and transparent.
I can't believe it! Tommy just laid a huge PERSONAL ATTACK on Val!
"goes directly to the liberal mentality of govt. spending" --Tommy
That is an unprovoked broad-brush remark about liberals. Hard to tell if it is tommy or Hannity.
Funds already allocated? Are you suggesting that congress has billions of dollars lying around to spend as any congressman sees fit?
What Pelosi and all the other drunken sailors in congress continue to do with spending is disgusting. Forget the semantics of "why" she did it...the real issue is "what" our congressmen are doing with our money.
Shh, Wesley - it's not a spending problem at all......it's because taxes are just too low on those evil rich people.
LOL...that really separates the wheat from the chaff.
It doesn't even separate the facts from the lies.
Well, while we're drifting... in the fabulous 50s, the top marginal tax rate was 91%. Now it's 35%.
Class warfare? The war is over, and the middle class lost.
So Val, it you want to return to the 91% tax rate on the evil rich, do you think they will just lay over and pay that without a wimper? Or will they try and make it up elsewhere in their fat portfolios? Make it up elsewhere by closing companies, or cutting jobs away from the middle class you claim will win when the tax burden is shifted so excessively high on the job creators?
Why can't some liberals see past their knee jerk reactions of "soaking the rich" and realize there will be unintended consequences? Amazing.
You could try asking me what I think before you tell me, Tommy.
By your comments about the fabulous 50's and how the middle class lost the war, I didn't think I was being presumptious in assuming which era you preferred.
Even though you didn't ask, no, I am not advocating returning the tax rates to what they were then - in no small part due to the fact that I think the government would waste the money. I do think that the rich could survive a less regressive tax regime, though, since they seem to have done fine before.
I think it is ironic that it's the Dems who get saddled with the label of "soak the rich" when they were taxed to the gills under Dwight David Fricking Eisenhower.
By that logic we could never tax the rich or businesses ever again, they would just make it up by passing the cost onto the middle class. Except according to business logic businesses dont KEEP excess people on staff, they dont employ more people than it TAKES to make their profit anyway so your logic doesnt pan out. If they kept Since when did businesses just keep people employed out of the goodness of their hearts, tell me about those businesses. No let me tell YOU about them THEY DONT EXIST. Not even a good try.
No, the real issue brought up by Media Matters is not about spending tax dollars wisely or unwisely.
The real issue brought up was an unfair smear against Pelosi.
There is pork, and then there is representing one's constituents because you have their best interests at heart.
Of course legislators are going to promote projects in their own areas. They should promote projects that deserve promotion and that do not benefit themselves.
Given our nation's budget and the offering here, this was not an offensive thing for her to do. That has been documented repeatedly, but yet another smear merchant failed to acknowledge those facts and so they smear her unfairly again!
It's the smear of Pelosi that's being highlighted here. Spending on individual projects by the federal government is not the issue.
Glad to see that you're on board with the rampant pork being doled out by politicians.
I don't have a dog in the Pelosi ethics fight...Her request would not be an issue if there were controls on this type of spending...then she could offer her defense...right up front...as to why this request is necessary.
Sneaking expenditures into spending bills under the cloak of night is not defensible.
It's not something only Pelosi does.
Of course not...as I plainly said earlier.
It seems she only passed the request.
What?
There are now rules and regulations.
The lack of rules for the Republicans made the number of earmarks skyrocket - I believe there was a 1000-fold increase in about 10 years.
Pelosi followed all the rules. There is no evidence of any benefit to her husband's property from this waterfront improvement. Because there's no evidence of any benefit, there's no reason for her to acknowledge the benefit! She followed the rules, new rules, that the Democrats put in play because of the shady stuff the Republicans did!
From the Boston Globe on the 2005 transportation bill:
- AT $286.4 BILLION, the highway bill just passed by Congress is the most expensive public works legislation in US history. In addition to funding the interstate highway system and other federal transportation programs, it sets a new record for pork-barrel spending, earmarking $24 billion for a staggering 6,376 pet projects, spread among virtually every congressional district in the land. The enormous bill -- 1,752 pages long -- wasn't made public until just before it was brought to a vote, and so, as The New York Times noted, ''it is safe to bet that none of the lawmakers, not even the main authors, had read the entire package."
That didn't stop them from voting for it. It passed 412 to 8 in the House, 91 to 4 in the Senate. -
That's not the kind of representative government that I support...blindly authorizing spending bills...with little opposition...talk about a good ole boys club.
I'm certain that you did note, even though you did not report, that the bill cited was passed in the preceeding (Repugnant) congress, under the old (non-existent) rules.
You did note as well, even though you did not report, that Good Ole Boy Hastert appears to have cleared some $4.1mil on real estate though a small undisclosed adjustment in that bill?
If you're lining up on the side of fiscal responsibility and ethics...good for you. Pelosi's request may be legit...what is not legit is the corrupt system of earmarks being submitted and approved with little accountability.
If you're attempting a partisan gotcha argument...I'm not interested.
The corrupt system was what the Republicans were doing.
They're the ones who made 10 times as many earmarks every year during their reign of power. They're the ones who refused to reign in that spending. Pelosi has done good here on this particular issue!
Do you ever read what you copy before you paste?
This was the very thing I was mentioning. Before the changes Pelosi put into place. Changes she complied with in regard to certifying that the Congressman doesn't expect any direct benefit from the earmark.
She expects no direct benefit. All of San Fran will benefit, as will much of the whole USA, from this expenditure. She didn't submit it because she expected direct benefit. She submitted it because her constituents expect her to represent their best interests - what a novel idea!
"Her request would not be an issue if there were controls on this type of spending...then she could offer her defense...right up front...as to why this request is necessary.
Sneaking expenditures into spending bills under the cloak of night is not defensible."
There are controls on this kind of spending now that weren't in place previously. She did offer up her defense! She didn't sneak anything into any spending bill.
Her request is still an issue, even though all the things you said must be in effect are. It's the fact that her request is still an issue despite those facts is why Media Matters posted this here!
<braile tag> I stated that her request might very well be legit. <close braille tag>
The issue that I take offense at is that political hacks submit all kinds of kooky funding requests from their constituents. They are routinely ok'd with a rubber stamp from a weak spined congress.
It's a damn shame that congressmen now have to submit in writing that there intent is legal and provides them no economic benefit...sweet fancy moses...what must our founding fathers be thinking about this rotten system.
"Now?" You think corruption is some kind of newfangled 21st century thing? It's as old as the hills and as American as apple pie.
You stated her request might be legit, and you ALSO said
"Her request would not be an issue if there were controls on this type of spending...then she could offer her defense...right up front...as to why this request is necessary.
Sneaking expenditures into spending bills under the cloak of night is not defensible."
And then I said
There are controls on this kind of spending now that weren't in place previously. She did offer up her defense! She didn't sneak anything into any spending bill.
Her request is still an issue, even though all the things you said must be in effect are. It's the fact that her request is still an issue despite those facts is why Media Matters posted this here!
I read what you said, and called that part of your comment out! She did none of the things you suggest, and she is not guilty as alleged. She didn't slip it into any bill. The fact that you said it might be legit does not excuse your other distortions of the facts!
And then I said...and then you said...and then he said...
Most everyone here is capable of reading and comprehending posts on their own...
In a word...boring...overwrought...self-indulging.
Ok...three words.
Does it really bother you so much to have your own words quoted back to you?
Nope...just giving style points...and they're approaching the levels attained by "sue"...whew!
I would say that most posters on the left are capable of that.
Apparently most on the right are not. Like you are not.
You got caught in a distortion. That's common for rightwingers here. In fact, that's why Media Matters is here, because of rightwing distortions!
I caught you, and you couldn't squirm away any more, could you? If you felt uncomfortable having your own words used against you, I did my job! Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly hate it when Media Matters uses their own words against them, so you're in good company!
Pelose is in this request not spending, she simply passed the request and it not approved yet. She is a passive actor in this one (if you can believe the reports) and not an active one.
Wesly there was a report of a congressman buying some isolated land and then arrainging for a federal road to go there. He made quite a bundle when he resold. Apparently this has been done a few times. I don't know any names or affilations of who did this, but it would seem to be a whole nother level of abuse here. More worthy of investigation or coment than this.
Seattle will be rebuilding the water front bulkhead in the near future. I'll bet federal funds will be involved. Do I expect to hear a peap from the national media on this, no. What is wrong with this picture?
[link to www.examiner.com]
So this is the new way of reporting by our so-called media......
Not making a simple phone call to confirm but by out-right insinuation....
Regardless of whether Pelosi makes $5, $5 million or losses as much, these pathetic excuses for reporters should be smacked down for being lazy at their supposed jobs!
Or is this what the right-wing calls reporting now-a-days...... speaking an opinion based on your collective biases and speaking them to an audience as if the thoughts were fact.
Oh yeah......that is corporate owned media in a nutshell!
Pork - A government project or appropriation that yields jobs or other benefits to a specific locale and patronage opportunities to its political representative.
A pork barrel (or pork barrel politics) describes government spending that is intended to benefit constituents of a politician in return for their political support, either in the form of campaign contributions or votes.
This project doesn't fit either definition. She didn't initiate this request to benefit herself or her husband. She initiated this request to forward a request from the staff of the city of San Francisco.
This is utter nonsense. Like I said elsewhere, the Republicans have nothing but fear to peddle in '08...so they have to resort to their old trick of manufacturing scandals.
Unless you want to stop spending federal money altogether on local projects, then you're farting in the wind. There is nothing scandalous, improper, or even distasteful about this.
LOL I'm as liberal as the next guy, but for me, it's the fact that Pelosi and her husband own FOUR properties on or near the waterfront in San Francisco. And she understands the plight of the middle class, which includes probably most of us, how??? Typical national politician, either party. Wake up America, cuz we're all getting the bid screwin'
right, we know you're as liberal as the next guy, because you told us so.
I have a question. Why are you attacking me personally?
The properties are only "on or near the waterfront" insofar as all of San Francisco is "near" the waterfront, but I think I see your point...
I personally favour public funding of all elections so you don't have to be as rich as God to run. As it is, I guess I prefer a politician at least giving lip service to the poor and middle classes to an outright unlubricated rogering...
Is it me, or do we have a bunch "I'm a liberal but <insert rightwing talking point here>" kind of people on this board. FOX Noise and EIB is bombarding us with their undercover operatives.
I think it's funny that they think that would work. "Wow, I really disagree with that, but since it's a liberal saying it, I guess it's OK!"
By now you would think they would have seen enough examples of us liberals arguing amongst ourselves. If we are a bit kinder to each other we still disagree often enough.
A bit, but only a bit. I listened to Mike Malloy on the way home last night... not a happy camper.
You know, I've enjoyed my time here. Many posters, including you Valentinian actually, I had fun reading. But I'm tired of the kind of branding that goes on and I am for sure done explaining myself when all I've ever done is try and add to the conversation. You all have beautiful lives. Tommy, I'll miss you most of all.
The true issue about 'benefiting' from this is pretty simple.
Most everyone in San Fran is going to benefit from this project. It's going to put millions of dollars into the local economy. It will make the city a better place. It will trickle down to some people in a very small way, and to others in a more significant way, and it could even be a detriment to a few people, maybe those who own property near the construction area while the construction is going on, or people who get more traffic through their neighborhood as a result of this project.
Pelosi's husband's property is so far away from this project - a mile in a big city is a huge distance and many blocks away!
He will only benefit indirectly.
If the criteria for earmarks was that Pelosi cannot even benefit indirectly, then she could never bring any to fruition! Anything that benefits one part of the USA benefits us all in some indirect way. Anything that benefits San Francisco would indirectly benefit her family. Anything in California likely would too.
The line has been drawn at direct benefits. Pelosi's husband's property doesn't directly benefit from this.
I'm so glad we've had this time together, I.T.A.G.C.O.W!
It's been a very "personal-attacky" day at MMfA. Not sure why. Anyway, hope you'll stay around. All of us have been guilty of taking these conversations a little too seriously from time to time, but at least we're talking...
I'm a conservative but even I have a problem with the corruption in the republican party. lol
Hey, I'm an idiot, but even *I* have a problem with that impersonation of humanity currently in the WH.
There is massive corruption in both parties. The state of the nation reflects that to an extent that is impossible to hide.