THIS is why I hate govt officials

[OldGuysRule]

No offense, I realize you are far smarter than I am when it comes to economic jazz but all Im saying is Im tired of liars in washington!

**EDIT** I have to add, you understand that the dollar amount of his earmarks is not what Im upset about right? You and most of the people in this thread are soley focused on dollar amounts. Its simply the fact that he says one thing and does another. He is dishonest to his constituents.

Tell me when he was being dishonest. Point me to where he said he wasn't going to put earmarks in.

He voted against earmarks. Earmarks passed. He put some in.

I may be wrong but I've never heard him say he wouldn't put earmarks in.

There is a difference between voting no on something and if it passes using it to your advantage.

Hell, even Ron Paul has stated he thinks everything in the budget should be earmarked so the administration can't spend the money as they want to.

[Denny]

Tell me when he was being dishonest. Point me to where he said he wasn't going to put earmarks in.

He voted against earmarks. Earmarks passed. He put some in.

I may be wrong but I've never heard him say he wouldn't put earmarks in.

There is a difference between voting no on something and if it passes using it to your advantage.

Hell, even Ron Paul has stated he thinks everything in the budget should be earmarked so the administration can't spend the money as they want to.

No doubt. It deligates the money so that bullshit, like what happened with the Stimulus fiascos this year, can't just have an "up for grabs" slush fund.

[Denny]

Just to piss you off a little more... $16 million isn't what Cornyn requested in earmarks... he requested $170 million in 54 earmarks. Hell Ron Paul, Mr. I Don't Vote Yes For Appropriations, has $358 million in earmarks!

Texas has over $6 billion in 1084 earmarks in the 2011 budget or about $250 per capita.

Here is the breakdown (millions/# earmarks)

Senate:
Hutchinson - $770 / 119
Cornyn - $170 / 54

House:
Cuellar - $783 / 94
Lee - $752 /69
Ortiz - $615 / 99
Green - $615 / 70
Green - $541 / 73
Rodriguez - $412 / 88
Gonzalez - $373 / 67
Paul - $358 / 51
Johnson - $287 / 69
Edwards - $212 / 119
Hinojosa - $171 / 46
Ryes - $159 / 48
Dogget - $20 / 18

Nothing from Barton?

[OldGuysRule]

Nothing from Barton?

Hmmmm.... wonder why he wasn't in there.

I got the database from http://taxpayer.net/. He isn't listed in the database. But I'm not sure if the database tags them only when they are an author or if it also tags them if they are a sponsor.

[Denny]

Hmmmm.... wonder why he wasn't in there.

I got the database from http://taxpayer.net/. He isn't listed in the database. But I'm not sure if the database tags them only when they are an author or if it also tags them if they are a sponsor.

I know he was jumping on the "no earmrk" bandwagon a while back. Looks like he might be standing up for that stance. Although, I don't blame the others for putting something in if earmarks aren't benned. Might as well not deprive your district if all the other districts get in on the action.

[Gargamel]

The more I read about earmarks, the more I think, "who gives a shit". They serve a purpose in letting members of Congress get highly directed funding of what many times are important projects. The bullshit ones we hear about in the news are actually few and far between.

I remember Bobby Jindal making fun of an earmark that funded research for predicting the eruption of volcanoes. Sounds kinda wasteful until you realize that it was for Alaska and that Alaska has several active volcanoes. That's just an example I pulled off the top of my head. (keep in mind that I actually like Gov Jindal).

IMO, the hubbub on earmarks is nothing more than another effort to distract the populous from real issues. Why focus on something that makes up a VERY small percentage of the budget when we could focus on major expenditures like the F-22. I love this fighter but the fact is that it will cost OVER $1TRILLION over its life span. We can't afford it. Again, this is just one example that I pulled off the top of my head. Everyone here knows of multiple examples with entitlements, defense, transportation, etc, etc, etc..

On a side note, the ongoing production of the F-22 has been canceled, much to my disagreement.

BTW, Have you checked the projected cost of the F-35 lately?

[Lason]

Tell me when he was being dishonest. Point me to where he said he wasn't going to put earmarks in.

He voted against earmarks. Earmarks passed. He put some in.

I may be wrong but I've never heard him say he wouldn't put earmarks in.

There is a difference between voting no on something and if it passes using it to your advantage.

Hell, even Ron Paul has stated he thinks everything in the budget should be earmarked so the administration can't spend the money as they want to.

I guess this is where we differ on our views. I believe in leading by example. On a single bill you go on the record with Fox talking about how bad this bill is due to its high price but the very reason its a bad bill is because he and other senators have bloated it with their earmarks.

I see where your coming from and I even posted that in my original post where I said "I understand having to play the system your dealt" but I also believe in leading by example. As much as he pisses me off, Rick Perry was against the stimulas and even rejected money offered to him. THAT is leading by example.

I know, I know. Your going to google your ass off, come up with a dozen reasons why he did it or even find where he took part of it but my point and opinion on the matter still stands. I have more respect for politicians that practice what they preach.

[OldGuysRule]

I guess this is where we differ on our views. I believe in leading by example. On a single bill you go on the record with Fox talking about how bad this bill is due to its high price but the very reason its a bad bill is because he and other senators have bloated it with their earmarks.

I see where your coming from and I even posted that in my original post where I said "I understand having to play the system your dealt" but I also believe in leading by example. As much as he pisses me off, Rick Perry was against the stimulas and even rejected money offered to him. THAT is leading by example.

I know, I know. Your going to google your ass off, come up with a dozen reasons why he did it or even find where he took part of it but my point and opinion on the matter still stands. I have more respect for politicians that practice what they preach.

I understand where you were coming from. But the fact is earmarks remained and it would have been bad not to get the $6.2 billion for Texas. Especially since Texas is looking at a $20 billion deficit at the moment (and Texas MUST have a balanced budget. Either spending needs to be cut or taxes are going up.)

Total Discretionary spending in the 2011 budget is 1.39 trillion or about 38% of total spending. Total earmarks are 130 billion or about 10% of the discretionary spending and 3.5% of the total budget.

All I'm saying is don't concentrate on 3.5% of the total budget. They could have totally removed earmarks and we'd still be running a crazy deficit.

We'd all be "happy" because there were no earmarks but the reality would be we're still screwed. A total overhaul is necessary when 62% of your budget is entitlement spending and interest payments.

Don't believe for one moment that Rick Perry rejected stimulus money. Rick Perry accepted $17 billion in stimulus money from the federal government... after he said he wouldn't. He accepted money for education, transportation, health and human services and extension of unemployment and health insurance.

I don't need to "google my ass off" government always intrigued me and I stay pretty current. Hell, I was an elected official in Texas for 6 years.

[OldGuysRule]

Oops. I was wrong. Perry did reject 555 million of the 17 billion that went to unemployment. A month later he requested a 170 million loan from the Federal Government to pay unemployment.

[Lason]

uggggg, am I really not getting my point across clearly?

I dont care, at all, about how much any of this cost.

For the sakes of helping you understand why I am upset, lets say this senator is upset because someone tracked in mud on the new carpet. He has said more than once that he wants a rule that states that all shoes need to be taken off and left at the front door. As he tells his family this as he himself, is wearing muddy sneakers on the new carpet.

Does that help at all?

[OldGuysRule]

uggggg, am I really not getting my point across clearly?

I dont care, at all, about how much any of this cost.

For the sakes of helping you understand why I am upset, lets say this senator is upset because someone tracked in mud on the new carpet. He has said more than once that he wants a rule that states that all shoes need to be taken off and left at the front door. As he tells his family this as he himself, is wearing muddy sneakers on the new carpet.

Does that help at all?

Ugg... you said:

As much as he pisses me off, Rick Perry was against the stimulas and even rejected money offered to him. THAT is leading by example.
.

You believe Perry didn't accept the money. He most certainly did.

You used him as an example as someone who leads by example.

Does he lead by example?

What would you rather have happen? Cornyn earmark the money or let it slide to the executive branch (Obama) so his staff can allocate the money?

You should absolutely care what it costs since it is your money that is being appropriated. You can either concentrate on 96.5% of the budget or 3.5% of the budget. I have 15 clients out of 150 that account for over 80% of my revenue... should I concentrate on those 15 clients accounting for 80% of my revenue or should I concentrate on the other 135? (in reality I do spend some time with a few of the other 135 since they are new and have the potential to be in the top 15.)

Ultimately it is money out of your pocket, not your principles, that pay the bills in DC.

I understand your point. It works well when the majority of senators and the majority of representatives also see your point and vote your point. It didn't happen. So, you step back in reality and play the game according to the rules.

If Cornyn doesn't earmark (along with all Texas senators and representatives) then the money either gets spent by others in the legislative branch or ends up on Obama's plate to spend.

I'd rather have Cornyn allocate it to Texas.

[Lason]

Ugg... you said:



You believe Perry didn't accept the money. He most certainly did.

You used him as an example as someone who leads by example.

Does he lead by example?

No, I said he rejected money offered to him and you agreed. That was a single example. He rejected money and it made headlines. For that single instance he lead by example. Did he take money before and after? I guess, you would know better than me. I am talking a single instance.

Oops. I was wrong. Perry did reject 555 million of the 17 billion that went to unemployment. A month later he requested a 170 million loan from the Federal Government to pay unemployment.

As far as the rest of your post, Im not responding to it. This thread is purely a rant about and not about my opinions on where the money goes. It is about a person's morals and why I do not trust people like him. Its purely an opinion I have that was reinforced while watching a interview this morning.

**EDIT** I decided to respond to the rest of your post for everyones sanity. I agree 110% with you. I would rather the money come here than go to the obama administration. I agree earmarks is just a single crumb out of the whole pie but I also believe something has to change and it needs to start somewhere. I realized his strategy when I heard the interview this morning but I still dont like it.

[big_tiger]

I completely disagree. The whole purpose for the existence of the federal government is to do what the states cannot do for themselves, and that is all. Earmarks are just a method for ballooning state governments that don't have the budget to keep expanding their power and programs to continue to expand those programs and thus their power.

This is my understanding of government, but where does it say that on law? If it does, then why doesn't anyone take this shit to court?

What would you rather have happen? Cornyn earmark the money or let it slide to the executive branch (Obama) so his staff can allocate the money?

You should absolutely care what it costs since it is your money that is being appropriated. You can either concentrate on 96.5% of the budget or 3.5% of the budget. I have 15 clients out of 150 that account for over 80% of my revenue... should I concentrate on those 15 clients accounting for 80% of my revenue or should I concentrate on the other 135? (in reality I do spend some time with a few of the other 135 since they are new and have the potential to be in the top 15.)

Ultimately it is money out of your pocket, not your principles, that pay the bills in DC.

I understand your point. It works well when the majority of senators and the majority of representatives also see your point and vote your point. It didn't happen. So, you step back in reality and play the game according to the rules.

If Cornyn doesn't earmark (along with all Texas senators and representatives) then the money either gets spent by others in the legislative branch or ends up on Obama's plate to spend.

I'd rather have Cornyn allocate it to Texas.

I am just trying to understand your point. You are saying that this bill asks for X amount; with Cornyn's Y amount. If Cornyn doesn't ask for Y amount; then the bill still equals X amount???

[OldGuysRule]

This is my understanding of government, but where does it say that on law? If it does, then why doesn't anyone take this shit to court?




I am just trying to understand your point. You are saying that this bill asks for X amount; with Cornyn's Y amount. If Cornyn doesn't ask for Y amount; then the bill still equals X amount???

No without Cornyn's Y amount someone else would have stuck in a Y amount or Obama's administration would have used the Y amount.

One of the prime functions of the United States Congress is to appropriate federal dollars. Texas, as a whole, is one of the largest tax givers to the Federal Government. Cornyn better be funneling the money back to Texas.

[OldGuysRule]

No, I said he rejected money offered to him and you agreed. That was a single example. He rejected money and it made headlines. For that single instance he lead by example. Did he take money before and after? I guess, you would know better than me. I am talking a single instance.

Lason:

While he was pushing http://www.nogovernmentbailouts.com/ and telling the world stimulus money was wrong... he was accepting it. No before, not after but during. As in talking out of both sides of his ass cheeks.

The only part of the stimulus package he didn't accept was the 550 million for unemployment benefits. A month later he went back to the Federal Government and asked for a 170 million dollar loan to cover unemployment.