| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Breaking - House Appropriations And Defense Committies Ban For-Profit Earmarks |
| 2010-03-10 |
| The powerful House Appropriations Committee announced Wednesday it will no longer approve earmarks directed at for-profit companies. Chairman Dave Obey (D-Wis.) and newly appointed defense appropriations subcommittee Chairman Norm Dicks (D-Wash.) made their ruling less than an hour after House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) asked that House Republicans meet to take up a unilateral moratorium on earmark spending. In a statement Obey said that "these new policies are not intended to be a one-year experiment. They are intended to be a long-term proposition." A number of Democrats and Republicans have undertaken efforts to rein in so-called "pork barrel" spending in recent days, sparking a battle between the parties over who can best reform the earmark process. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has lobbied members of her party in recent days to impose a moratorium on earmarks in order to get out in front of Republicans on the issue. Republicans discussed enacting a ban in the last Congress, but a vote never materialized. That the Appropriations Committee decided to bar for-profit earmarks signals that Democrats are looking to make a splash with their effort. Without harming the 'community organizations' that are vital to their re-election hopes ... Dicks' successor atop the defense appropriations subcommittee, the late Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), was known for handing out millions of dollars in earmarks to defense contractors to create projects in his district. Murtha's propensity to dole out cash for his district sparked several probes by the ethics committee and federal prosecutors. Government watchdogs have for years decried the use of earmarks, saying that they are wasteful and cause corruption. Several lawmakers have pushed for reform for several years, but spending has ballooned under both Republican and Democratic Congresses. Obey and Dicks claim that 1,000 earmark requests would have been turned down last year if the rule was in place on their panel. The ruling also requires agencies to audit at least 5 percent of non-profit earmarks. They also announced the creation of a program that allow companies that don't have connections to the Pentagon to present their products to Defense Department officials. In a release, the two Democrats also touted earmark reforms enacted by Democrats in 2007 and 2009 related to earmark disclosure. But earmark disclosure reforms pushed by the Obama administration has not reduced the amount of spending, according to a recent report by Taxpayers for Common Sense. Two Republicans have taken up the issue in addition to Boehner. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) has indicated he will force a vote on a one-year moratorium on earmarks when the Senate takes up its extenders bill, which is expected to happen Wednesday. Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) is planning to offer a privileged resolution on the House floor requesting better guidance from the ethics committee on taking campaign contributions from companies that accept earmarks. Republicans have argued that Democratic proposals won't go far enough in cutting earmarks. In a statement, Flake praised the committee's move but said more is needed. "Banning earmarks to private companies leaves untouched the millions of dollars wasted every year by earmarks, but it is a good first step in addressing the corruption that stems from the practice," he said. "I hope that Republicans take these restrictions a step further and impose a moratorium on all earmarks this year." |
| Posted by: Anonymoose |
| #7 Norm Dicks, on the job! way to go Norm. |
| Posted by: 746 2010-03-10 23:13 |
| #6 Does this mean Chrysler and Government Motors qualify? /sarc off |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2010-03-10 21:15 |
| #5 This is snake oil. "Not for profit" corporations handle some huge sums. They are just as corrupt as "for profit" companies. Some of the highest paid positions are with "not for profits". It doesn't mean they don't have cash flow, it just means they have to spend it, they can't show a "profit". |
| Posted by: crosspatch 2010-03-10 20:36 |
| #4 I hope the high pitched whine of Murtha spinning in his grave doesn't keep the folks in Pennsylvania awake tonight... |
| Posted by: tu3031 2010-03-10 19:50 |
| #3 A half assed job by a half assed congress. |
| Posted by: ed 2010-03-10 19:34 |
| #2 So basically, this means that stuff like Defense work, which is mostly done by for-profit companies, will be outside the earmark mechanism, while less venally-driven ventures, like the non-profit ACORN, will still be eligible. |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2010-03-10 19:32 |
| #1 ...and cause corruption. Cause nothing, they ARE corruption. |
| Posted by: Alanc 2010-03-10 18:56 |