AP ignored Democrats' response to earmark criticism: 40% are from Republicans
SUMMARY: The AP reported that "Republicans assailed" the omnibus bill recently passed by the House as "too costly" and quoted Republicans criticizing the bill as, in the reporter's words, "bristl[ing] with earmarks." At no point did the reporter give any indication that many of the earmarks were included at the request of Republicans.
In a February 26 Associated Press article on the omnibus legislation passed by the "Democratic-controlled House" on Tuesday, David Espo reported that "Republicans assailed the legislation as too costly" and quoted Republicans criticizing the bill as, in the reporter's words, "bristl[ing] with earmarks." While Espo included examples of Democratic earmarks, at no point did he give any indication that many of the earmarks were included in the bill at the request of Republicans. Moreover, Espo cited the Taxpayers for Common Sense as a critic of the earmarks in the bill, without noting that the group cited earmarks by both Democrats and Republicans.
While quoting Republicans attacking the bill for earmarks, Espo did not note a handout distributed on February 24 by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) titled "You can't spell 'earmark' without an 'R,' " asserting that "40% of the earmarks in the omnibus appropriations bill are Republican earmarks." The handout also stated that "[t]he earmarks in the omnibus appropriations bill total less than 1% of the budget," and that they "were reduced by 43% last year, and the omnibus appropriations bill reduces earmarks by another 5%."
Espo also wrote that "[a]fter persuading lawmakers to keep earmarks off the stimulus bill, Obama made no such attempt on the first non-emergency spending measure of his presidency. The result was that lawmakers claimed billions in federal funds for pet projects -- a total of 8,570 earmarks at a cost of $7.7 billion, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense [TCS]." He added: "Majority Democrats declined to provide a number of earmarks, but said the cost was far smaller, $3.8 billion, 5 percent less than a year ago." However, Espo did not note that TCS highlighted both Republican and Democratic earmarks.
Indeed, in its February 24 item on the earmarks in the omnibus bill, TCS reported that Rep. Dennis Rehberg (R-MT) sponsored an earmark designating $300,000 for a "Montana World Trade Center," Rep. John Peterson (R-PA) sponsored an earmark designating $200,000 for an "Oil Region Alliance," and Rep. Barbara Cubin (R-WY) sponsored an earmark designating $190,000 for the "Buffalo Bill Historical Center."
By contrast, in their reporting on the omnibus bill, several other media outlets have noted the Democrats' response to Republican allegations about earmarks. In a February 24 Congressional Quarterly article on the appropriations bill, staff writer Bennett Roth reported:
House Democrats are working to undercut accusations by Republicans that the omnibus spending bill represents a spending spree on earmarks -- and pointedly noting that the measure includes a healthy number of GOP-sponsored special projects.
Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer, D-Md., distributed a handout Tuesday at his weekly news conference entitled, "You can't spell 'earmark' without an 'R,' " which stated that 40 percent of the earmark dollars included in the bill were sponsored by Republicans.
The appropriations omnibus (HR 1105) is scheduled for a House vote Wednesday.
"Republicans are continuing to try to sweep their history under the rug and convince the American people that they are committed to fiscal responsibility," stated the handout. "But their record on earmarks and the amount of earmarks contained in the omnibus appropriations bill make it clear that Republicans are just using this as another political ploy."
Also, in a February 24 McClatchy article headlined "GOP hates earmarks -- except the ones its members sponsor," David Lightman reported: "Republicans are expected to deliver a daylong rant Wednesday against Democratic spending legislation, yet the bill is loaded with thousands of pet projects that Republican lawmakers inserted." Lightman also reported: "House Democrats estimate that Republicans inserted 40 percent of the earmarks in the bill. An independent budget watchdog group, Taxpayers for Common Sense, said the 60-40 Democratic-Republican ratio followed historical patterns."
Furthermore, Lightman also reported on the earmarks of Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA), the senior Republican on the House Appropriations Committee, and Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS), the top Republican on Senate Appropriations:
Rep. Jerry Lewis of California, the top Republican on the House Appropriations Committee, would spend $3.8 million on a Needles, Calif., highway.
Sen. Thad Cochran of Mississippi, the top Republican on Senate Appropriations, backs earmarks including a $950,000 nature education center in Moss Point, Miss. He defends earmarks.
"You have to take these on a case-by-case basis," he said. "A lot of these projects are justified."
One prominent Republican critic, however, wouldn't relent. When he was asked what Obama should do with a bill full of earmarks, Sen. John McCain of Arizona said flatly: "I would call on him to veto it."
In addition, an AP audio report on Espo's article asserted: "Republicans blasted the measure for including almost 9,000 earmarks at a cost of more than 7 billion dollars," but did not report that some of the earmarks are sponsored by Republicans.
From the February 26 AP article:
The Democratic-controlled House pushed through a $410 billion measure Wednesday that boosted domestic programs, bristled with earmarks and chipped away at policies left behind by the Bush administration.
[...]
After persuading lawmakers to keep earmarks off the stimulus bill, Obama made no such attempt on the first non-emergency spending measure of his presidency. The result was that lawmakers claimed billions in federal funds for pet projects -- a total of 8,570 earmarks at a cost of $7.7 billion, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense. Majority Democrats declined to provide a number of earmarks, but said the cost was far smaller, $3.8 billion, 5 percent less than a year ago.
Among the earmarks was one sponsored by Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif., who secured $200,000 for a "tattoo removal violence outreach program" in Los Angeles. Aides said the money would pay for a tattoo removal machine that could help gang members or others shed visible signs of their past, and anyone benefiting would be required to perform community service.
Rep. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., said the bill included at least a dozen earmarks for clients of PMA Group, a lobbying company now at the center of a federal corruption investigation.
"It's simply not responsible to allow a soon-to-be-criminally indicted lobbying firm to win funding, all borrowed, in this bill," he said. No charges have been filed against the firm or its principals, although the company's offices were raided earlier this month, and it has announced plans to disband by the end of the month.
Federal prosecutors are investigating PMA Group's founder and president, Paul Magliochetti, who is a former top aide to Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee that funds defense programs.
In remarks on the House floor, Republican leader John Boehner urged Obama to veto the legislation, citing earmarks.
At the White House, press secretary Robert Gibbs responded only in general terms whether that was possible.
"There is great concern in this building and by the president about earmarks," Gibbs said. "Without having looked specifically at a piece of legislation, I'm hesitant to throw out that four-letter word, 'Veto.' "
From the AP web audio report:
Republicans blasted the measure for including almost 9,000 earmarks at a cost of more than 7 billion dollars. Democrats wouldn't say how many there are, but insist the cost is about half that amount. One of the earmarks was for a $200,000 program to help gang members erase their tattoos.
This is a perfect example of why we should throw them all out and pick a new congress from the phone book. We can't do much worse than we have now. Both parties should be ashamed of themselves.
Both parties? Why? It's pretty clear who's dragging everyone down.
So let me get this straight, are you saying that the 40% of the earmarks coming from the repubs is a bad thing but the 60% coming from the dems is a good thing? Your post does not make alot of sense. I would love to hear you explain it.
The poll shows that dems and indies approve of what's happening in their own party while the repubs DO NOT! Next lesson in a week or so...
Oh I get it now, the dems are happy that their party passed a hugh bill that no one even read before voting on, that sounds like a great method of legislating . And true to the system they continue to dominate the earmark process that escapes review also. Well at least they are consistent. And BTW, the independents do not have a party. Maybe you should give me a new lesson now and explain why you support the earmark process, the process that Obama himself opposes. I am waiting teacher.
Anyone who worked on the bill read it. The only ones who didn't read it were the republicans who were too busy throwing a temper tantrum on the house floor and on TV. If they spent as much time reading the bill as they did crying to the public, they would have had plenty of time to read it and still would have had time left over to go on TV to complain about specific issues (instead of broad, half made up allegations - what a change that would be!).
That is a crock, people who worked on the bill read THEIR parts of it, no one read the whole thing or even had the opportunity to do so. But since this discussion centers around earmarks , what do you think of them. You criticized me for being critical of both parties on the subject of earmarks. How do you think they should be handled, how would you address the issue? I would be interested to know.
You know what a subject matter expert is, right? And a project manager, right? A project manager relies on his or her SME's to get all the facts straight. So if every SME did their job correctly, then for all practical purposes the issue at hand was researched and the PM can make the call to move on to the next milestone. If that's not good enough for you, go to your bosses office and tell him every project on the table needs to grind to a halt so that every member of the team can become an expert on 100% of the project.
As far as this bill goes, regardless of what the whiney tantrum throwing republicans think, it was a compromise of tax cuts and spending projects, and I don't have a problem at this point with it moving forward. Nothing else needs to be addressed, it's a done deal. All folks like you are doing at this point is trying to blow smoke for political purposes because like rush, you want Obama to fail. Get over yourselves, you all lost the war of public opinion.
You're not good with data, are you?
He's good with data the is relevent to the discussion. And, he asks questions relevent to the discussion. You, on the other hand, are not good at answering a simple question. You are like brabs, who takes unsaid words and creates statements and attributes them to someone else.
Phil, phil, phil. You wouldn't know an answer if it wasn't given to you. While you're pointing fingers with that false claim about me and brabs, ya may want to consider there are 4 more fingers pointing right back at you.
You are not good at presenting data that matters, that much I can see.
I thought you said you could see? You make some vague claim that congress should be ashamed of themselves for (I assume) your whine about earmarks (new replacement word for pork which failed miserably) and I showed you a fact about how the public thinks congress is doing a better job (well, except for the republicans, who they all think sux). Here, if you want to be picky, perhaps this one will drive home the point that contrary to your whine, no one but you fools care about your silly little temper tantrums.
What a surprise, dems liked it , repubs did not and independents were split almost down the middle. But what does that have to do with earmarks, you still haven't given a hint as to what you think.
You really can't read a graph, can you?
that's because MMfA is using the same tactic that's used in business to obfuscate the facts with the facts.. it's like getting management riled up because "40 percent of absneteeism occurs on Mondays and Fridays"...lol Just more extreme left wing whingin and screaming Movie in a crowded fire house.
I guess the word "pork" didn't poll too will with their interest groups, so now they are trying a new focus word...
Isn't it interesting that when the talking heads discuss something of which parties can lay claim..it is always, Democrats have loaded the bill with prok projects for their districts,then after hammering the Democrats for five minutes, they reluctantly add...some republicans voted for the pork also(as their voices tail off)
Tomorrow, Pittsburgh Post Gazette, letter to the editor calling for the formation of a National Conservative Party.
I've been back almost a year and love to read LttE (Letters to the Editor... I shall now pronounce that acronym 'latte'- the peoples' voice over and on paper!) Since everyone goes to Starbuck's, right??? Or, perhaps, 'Little', as in the little people chime in.. or 'Lotta' since the bigwigs sometimes DO respond...
I know the person who wrote it and he is a luke-warm Republican. He is being questioned by some Republicans about his affiliation with the party. They didn't question what he wrote just that he is not "their" type of Republican. They are probably the people he is speaking about.
I told him that I would constantly ask the question if applicable on MMFA.
WHY DON'T THE CONSERVATIVES START THEIR OWN PARTY? They are like leeches sucking the blood out of the Republican Party. It is not easy removing a leech but it can be done. Use bug juice or burn it off with a lit cigarette.
It's also very interesting that every time Obama makes a speech the dow drops 1-2%. Hasn't the dow gone down over 2,000 points since he was elected? Shows how much confidence the financial system has in Obama's financial plan and in Obama. But, what do you expect when a web site will complain that republicans promoted 40% of the earmarks in a bill, which of course democrats supported 100% of the way. While somehow ignoring that 60% (fully supported and backed by democrats) is a MUCH larger number.
Democrats support 100% of earmarks (pork)
Republicans support 40% of earmarks (pork)
But, in some inane way, supporting 40% is much worse and worthy of public scrutiny. That is true liberalism at work for you.
Yeah phil, let's not take into consideration that we've been in a perpetual slide for over a year now and that it was created by republicans to begin with. Great example of you creating strawmen and then blaming them on someone else.
You believe what you want. I mean, you believe what you're told. Of course we've been in a slide for over a year, the dems have been in controll for over 2 years. I'm surprised it took that long to start the slide.
They've only been in control of Congress for 2 years, and barely when they took over in 2007.
I don't remember the dow going up when Bush spoke.
I cant remember the last person who, when asked about his main concerns, answered earmarks.
So because people don't list it as their main concern means that it is unimportant? Pres Obama has repeatedly expressed his concerns about the financial crisis we are in, we should be cutting out all but essential spending, that is just common sense. It is repubs and dems alike who are being stupid here. And Obama has vowed to ban earmarks, so why is this happening?
I'd say it's of very little importance.
Yes and as long as partisans take that approach to our legislature, it will continue to be a mess of a process and wasteful, but obviously as long as your crew is in charge, you don't care. That is a foolish position to take.
Nah, now that we've seen how republicans plan to be obstructionists we're just gonna move forward and completely ignore your demands. Win an election if you want to be relevant again.
Ask yourself this, if the dems had not been obstructionist when the repubs were trying to rerugulate Fannie and Freddie, maybe we wouldn't be in this mess now.
Why didn't the Repubs show leadership and just do it? Why because they were too lazy? You won't see that in this administration. You may not like it and start kicking and screaming about not getting YOUR way but this Administration is showing leadership and ACTING on the problems. And you must admit, with the popularity of Prez Obama, he could've just coasted and been buddy-buddy with the Repubs. But, no, he has put his neck on the line by the mere fact of DOING SOMETHING. The Republicans constantly whine about accepting responsibility...except when it is their turn. Example, philib is blaming Obama for problems in the market...down 2000 since the elction. PHILIB, who was the President when Obama was elected? As much as the Repubs try, they cannot erase the past eight years. So I hope that Prez Obama keeps reminding them of their hypocrisy.
fairliberal,
The idea that Democrats, who weren't in control of Congress nor of either "finance committees" until 2007, were the ones who prevented regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is false.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200902250016?f=s_search
"On The O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly falsely claimed that "the Democrats in charge of the finance committees" resisted efforts by the Bush administration to regulate the mortgage industry and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in particular. In fact, it was only after the Democrats did gain control of both "finance committees" in Congress in 2007 that Congress passed legislation strengthening oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."
In fact, in early 2007, as the new chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Frank sponsored H.R. 1427, a bill to create the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), granting that agency "general supervisory and regulatory authority over" Fannie and Freddie and directing it to reform the companies' business practices and regulate their exposure to credit and market risk. The FHFA was eventually created after Congress incorporated provisions that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said were "similar" to those of H.R. 1427 into the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, which Bush signed into law on July 30, 2008.
Furthermore, before taking over the House Financial Services Committee chairmanship, Frank worked with committee chairman Rep. Michael Oxley (R-OH) on the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005, which would have established the FHFA to replace the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) as overseer of the activities of Fannie and Freddie. After voting for the bill in committee, Frank voted against final passage of the bill on the House floor,stating that he was doing so because an amendment added to the billon the House floor imposed restrictions on the kinds of nonprofit organizations that could receive funding under the bill.
Philib
"But, what do you expect when a web site will complain that republicans promoted 40% of the earmarks in a bill, which of course democrats supported 100% of the way."
You're mixing standards. If you attribute 40% to earmarks to Republicans, then 60% were promoted by Democrats. And they didn't say the 40% was worse or anything of the sort. The point is that it's hypocritical for Republicans to complain about earmarks in a bill when they're responsible for 2/5ths of them.
No. Again you have no clue. The article said republicans supported 40% of the earmarks. How did the bill pass? Right, all the democrats supported it. That means 100% of democrats support 100% of the earmarks (pork).
Is 2/5ths larger or SMALLER than 3/5ths? Are you denying that 100% of democrats supported 100% of the pork?
Next time, reply to the post.
7 Democrats in the House supported the bill and 3 Republican Senators voted for it.
This is the thing about voting for and passing a bill: you either accept the entire bill, or not. The same goes for the president since he doesn't have a Line Item Veto thanks to Rudy "I have no idea what happened in the Iranian Hostage Crisis" Giuliani.
If all but 3 GOP Senators were going to vote for this bill, then why would they even request 40% of the earmarks? If you've been paying attention to the news lately, many GOP Congresspersons are now taking credit for something that will benefit their area, that they didn't even vote for! Obama and the Dems did much to let the GOP have their say in the bill. But if the Republicans were not going to vote for it, why even request those earmarks? Why not request no earmarks so that their #1 complaint about this bill: the cost, will go down?
"No. Again you have no clue. The article said republicans supported 40% of the earmarks. How did the bill pass? Right, all the democrats supported it. That means 100% of democrats support 100% of the earmarks (pork)."
They did more than support it, they're the ones who wanted them there. They wouldn't have been in there otherwise.
"Is 2/5ths larger or SMALLER than 3/5ths? Are you denying that 100% of democrats supported 100% of the pork?"
It's a significant portion, which makes complaints about earmarks from Republicans hypocritical. Do you understand that?
So what do you suggest? If Democrats don't allow anything from Republicans, then they're supporting 100% of the earmarks as well, and then Republicans will complain that it's not bipartisan. If Democrats compromise, then they're still somehow responsible for 100% of the earmarks. The only way around that is for them to vote against the bill. Nobody's buying that garbage.
I can't reply. It's a computer glitch that comes and goes.
Me: "That means 100% of democrats support 100% of the earmarks (pork)."
You: "They did more than support it, they're the ones who wanted them there. They wouldn't have been in there otherwise."
Thanks for pointing out who wanted all the pork in that bill. Does mmfa mention any of that in their whine about republican support of less than half the pork? For some reason, I didn't see that mention either. Talk about your hypocrisy!
philib,
When Brabantio said They did more than support it, they're the ones who wanted them there. They wouldn't have been in there otherwise" he was referring to the GOP Congresspersons who requested them, not the Dems.
That's the way he writes. He makes inane claims, then will later change it to mean something else and claim he never said what was said in the beginning. I'm sure he will change his mind again soon. I like to point out his inconsistancies then watch him squirm as he rearranges his opinion to fall in lock-step with what others tell him it should be. I fully understand why he does it, he's a liberal. And I fully expect that behavior for that simple reason. It's very common of most liberals to do the exact same thing.
philib, you are too funny. You are a better comedian than the leader of the Conbulican Party, the D.A. Rush. Everytime you get off on the wrong foot and someone tries to discuss the topic, you NEVER seem to understand ANY point made. At least AnotherAmerican and PointofView, who I admit, on occasion has a good one, debate the point and I personally learn something. That is my reason for being here. But I do like being called Vermin, it is soooo sexy coming from Doc Salvage.
Philib
"The article said republicans supported 40% of the earmarks."
That's what I was referring to. They did more than support them, they wanted them there. Did you really forget that you already said that Republicans promoted 40% of the earmarks?
MissDee
"that's because MMfA is using the same tactic that's used in business to obfuscate the facts with the facts.. it's like getting management riled up because "40 percent of absneteeism occurs on Mondays and Fridays"...lol Just more extreme left wing whingin and screaming Movie in a crowded fire house."
So MMfA is hiding the fact that there are five segments of earmarks and...no, there's no way of making any sense out of that comparison at all. If Republicans are responsible for 40% of the earmarks, then it's hypocritical for them to complain about the amount of earmarks. Where is the obfuscation?
Philib
"That's the way he writes. He makes inane claims, then will later change it to mean something else and claim he never said what was said in the beginning. I'm sure he will change his mind again soon"
I didn't change anything. It's clear to any thinking person that I was referring to Republicans. Why don't you address my post?
How long have you known this guy? He's not a "thinking person".
Tman
"How long have you known this guy? He's not a "thinking person"."
I know. I used that phrasing intentionally.
40% of the earmarks are from Republicans and 60% from Democrats? I wonder how Congress is divided - wouldn't be something like 40/60 would it?