09-25-2008, 05:30 PM
|
 |
Administrator
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Gender: 
Posts: 8,938
Thanks: 216
Thanked 2,155 Times in 1,609 Posts
|
|
Re: 2007 Congressional Record Against Waste
Quote:
Originally Posted by dabateman
Point out in the source where there is a distinction between the two... Wiki doesn't count because anyone can edit it. Point it out in the scholarly source the wiki article claims differentiates between the two.
The source they cite doesn't distinguish between the two, so the author of the article has already been discredited by lying about what their source says.
|
Done... 
Using 'soft earmarks,' Congress keeps pork projects thriving
Quote:
Sometimes on Capitol Hill, lawmakers find that it pays to ask nicely instead of just ordering the bureaucrats around.
With great fanfare, Congress adopted strict ethics rules last year requiring members to disclose when they steered federal money to pet projects. But it turns out that lawmakers can still secretly direct billions of dollars to favored organizations by making vague requests rather than issuing explicit instructions to government agencies in committee reports and spending bills. That seeming courtesy is the difference between "soft earmarks" and the more insistent "hard earmarks."...
After hard earmarks figured into several congressional scandals and prompted criticism of wasteful spending from government agencies and watchdog groups, Congress cut back on their number last year and required disclosure of most of them. There were more than 10,000, costing nearly $20 billion last year, according to the Congressional Research Service.
But soft earmarks, while not a new phenomenon, have drawn virtually no attention and were not included in the ethics changes - and current ones under consideration - because Congress does not view them as true earmarks.
Their cost is not known. But the research service found that they amounted to more than $3 billion in one spending bill alone in 2006, out of 13 annual appropriations bills. And the committee that handles the bill, which involves foreign operations, has increasingly converted hard earmarks to soft ones.
"This shows that even though lawmakers now have to disclose their pet projects, we're not getting a full accounting of earmarks," said Ryan Alexander, director of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a group in Washington that tracks earmarks. "We may just be looking at the tip of the iceberg."
Representative Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona, said he did not believe gentler language changed anything when it came to pork-barrel spending.
"No matter what you want to call it, an earmark is an earmark," said Flake, a longtime foe of the practice. "If congressional leaders don't believe that soft earmarks are earmarks, then I think that makes the case as to why we need tougher reforms in place."
Soft earmarks are included in a number of spending measures, but they tend to occur more frequently in spending bills that give money to the State Department, the U.S. Agency for International Development and other foreign aid programs.
Federal agencies are not required to finance soft earmarks. But officials have traditionally felt obliged to comply with such requests.
"Soft earmarks, while not legally binding, frequently come with an implicit threat: If you don't take our suggestions, we will give you a hard earmark next," said Andrew Natsios, former administrator of the Agency for International Development in the Bush administration.
In its report, the Congressional Research Service said agencies also could face budget cuts if they did not finance soft earmarks. Natsios said two lawmakers once threatened to cut his budget if he did not pay for one of their requests. He declined to identify them.
|
You with me now?... 
__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd
|
Linear Mode
