When Democrats took over Congress last fall, they got there campaigning against the process of secret earmarks, which tied into corruption probes against several Republicans. They pledged to eliminate the proces as part of a “transparency” in government; all a part of their ‘ending the culture of corruption’ mantra in the 2006 cycle.
Yet a mere six months after the Democrats took control, the only member of the Connecticut Congressional delegation that is willing to disclose his earmarks publicly is the lone Republican in that delegation; Rep. Christopher Shays.
As the Connecticut Post reports this morning, Reps. Rosa DeLauro, Chris Murphy, John Larson, and Joe Courtney, as well as U.S. Senators Chris Dodd and Joe Lieberman have all refused to disclose their earmarks, denying requests of CNN and Citizens Against Government Waste to do so. You can see CAGW’s updated earmark database here.
Representative Chris Murphy ought to be particularly embarrassed. He campaigned on a message of transparency in government, and in fact, on the issue of making earmarks transparent. In January he said he believed all members of Congress should be required to disclose their earmark projects. That was reported here in the Litchfield Times. A mere six months later, he is behaving like an old entrenched veteran, indifferent to his own obvious double-talk.
From the Post:
“Members have made various excuses for not publishing their lists, claiming that they have to ‘manage expectations,’ they ‘don’t want to offend local officials,’ and that requests are ‘confidential,’” said Tom Schatz, president of Citizens Against Government Waste. “They have apparently not suffered the supposed adverse consequencesof publishing such ‘private’ or ‘confidential’ information.”
If, as Democrats have suggested, this earmark process is at the root of corruption, I suppose we need to ask ourselves… why won’t they all come clean?
Sources: Urban, Peter. “Legislators Mute Over Earmarks.” Connecticut Post. June 25, 2007; Benjamin, Scott. “Murphy Targets Earmarks.” Litchfield Times. January 4, 2007
49 responses so far ↓
Good heavens Headless, when do you sleep?
Superb post, relevant links, well written to boot.
[quote comment="14135"]Good heavens Headless, when do you sleep?
Superb post, relevant links, well written to boot.[/quote]
I don’t sleep… I ride the foggy Nutmeg woods in search of liberals to pelt with pumpkins.
The Courant isn’t doing an expose on this? That’s weird.
I would think this would be a difficult time for Republicans to discuss “transparency in government” considering what has been going on with Senators Deluca and Congressman wannabe Cappiello who also accepted campaign contributions from the mob. The Mob gave-they accepted.
I’m sure the excuses are excellent. But I’d also like to know what they are planning on spending taxpayer money on. If Shays can do it, why can’t the others?
[quote comment="14138"]I would think this would be a difficult time for Republicans to discuss “transparency in government” considering what has been going on with Senators Deluca and Congressman wannabe Cappiello who also accepted campaign contributions from the mob. The Mob gave-they accepted.[/quote]
Nice diversion attempt!
That’s right, Sandy! Why should Democratic US Congressman have to follow through on their campaign promises when a couple small-time Republican State Senators accepted money from a shady character?
What type of distorted logic are you using, Sandy, that would justify that comment?
[quote post="674"]If Shays can do it, why can’t the others? [/quote]
Like all of Shays’ fellow Republicans in the Congress, is that what you mean????
Of course the other R’s should Toucan, which I will freely admit. I won’t make excuses for them – they should be as ashmed as Democrats. The difference is that you and Sandy prefer to attack Republicans rather than address the Democrats’ failures.
First let’s clarify the real differences not the spun ones:, The Connecticut Post made a similar request to Shays; Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-3; Rep. Chris Murphy, D-5; Sen. Joe Lieberman and Sen. Chris Dodd. Shays was again the only member willing to share his earmark requests.
“The public has a right to know what we’ve requested and clearly has a right to know what is in the legislation. So, it seems like a no-brainer,” Shays said. where the key difference appears to be that Shays will disclose both what he requests as well as what he actually gets in legislation. the article continues ; DeLauro, Murphy, Lieberman and Dodd are willing to publicize earmarks that make it into legislation, but not beforehand.
You still may not like what Democrats like Lieberman, the loyal to the core right wing neocon, are doing but let’s put it in perspective
I couldn’t access the CT POst link form the post so I put it below so I could refer to it.
http://www.connpost.com/localnews/ci_6223378
[quote comment="14148"][quote post="674"]If Shays can do it, why can’t the others? [/quote]
Like all of Shays’ fellow Republicans in the Congress, is that what you mean????[/quote]
I don’t see any other Rs in the Connecticut delegation…. I repeat, the CT delegation, which the subject of this post is about.
This is just like you calling me out for going after TrueBlue, but staying silent when he goes after HH. It’s your tacit endorsement of him, and your comment I quoted is your tacit endorsement of Democrat chicanery on the people of Connecticut.
WASHINGTON Democratic senators on Sunday chided Vice President Dick Cheney for declaring his office exempt from sections of a presidential order involving matters of national security. Republicans, more cautiously, said the matter deserves review.
http://www.connpost.com/localnews/ci_6219376
Republican Senators accepting money from the mob is no small issue.
My point was that super minority Republicans shouldn’t be throwing stones.
Huh, I adressed a comment by that self proclaimed moderate moderator Genghis only to have Ichy and Chris take umbrage with it…you have your own sock puppets now here too, Genghis?
CNN responses are in: Of the 435 representatives, only 45 have given their lists; 68 flat refused, six said they did not request any earmarks and 316 did not respond.
http://www.norwalkadvocate.com/news/opinion/letters/
Huh?
[quote comment="14156"]Huh?[/quote]
see #9 and #11 where they challenge my comment made re; your comment at #5….
…don’t touch their beloved Shays is what they are saying…as if Shays never criticized a fellow Republican
Is CAGW a hack, partisan outfit? You decide.
Just for kicks I checked out their Congressional scorecard for the 109th Congress. That would be the last one, where Republicans Tom Delay and Roy Blunt were in control of the purse strings.
CAGW’s database is sortable, so first I checked out my state’s legislators to see where they ranked. Lo and behold, all the Democrats had abysmal ratings, much lower than even Nancy Johnson and Rob Simmons, who both prided themselves on being able to bring home the bacon. (Chris Shays bringing home the bacon?? Nah, not so much…)
Anyway, I next sorted the database by party affiliation. Not one Democrat in the first page of twenty. Clicked on the next page. Nope, not one Democrat in the second twenty. Clicked on the next page…. Well, you can see where this is going.
On the eleventh page, I got to my first Democrat, Gene Taylor-MS, who CAGW actually ranked above six Republicans.
That’s right. On the matter of pork and government waste, this “non-partisan” group ranked almost every last Republican, (including Tom Delay!), as being better than Democrats.
And again, that was in the last, Republican-controlled Congress, when real conservatives were aghast at the way the money was being spent.
Some source.
Citizens Against Government debunked
here,
here,
here, etc.
TBCT,
Be that as it may, it doesn’t change the fact that they won’t disclose their earmarks. Wouldn’t you like to know what they are? I know I would.
[quote comment="14160"]TBCT,
Be that as it may, it doesn’t change the fact that they won’t disclose their earmarks. Wouldn’t you like to know what they are? I know I would.[/quote]
That’s what is known as a half truth, Genghis
I was not “challenging” anyone’s comments. I just wanted to know why some posters, as soon as some criticism of CT Democrats came up, immediately switched the subject to failures of Republicans.
Again, as I (so I thought) clearly stated before, all sides should reveal their earmark requests and I have a problem with members of both parties not doing so.
Why don’t Democrats posters express similar displeasure with both sides?
Oh sure, I guess I would like to know who’s asking for what. But is this a political maneuver, or a real reform effort? (and I agree secret ear-marks should be outlawed.)
Frankly, I can think of many downsides to making every last request public. I can’t wait to see what percentage of Shays whopping $316.5 Million in requested ear-marks actually gets funded.
That’s right. Shays wants over $300 million in pork!
[quote post="674"]Frankly, I can think of many downsides to making every last request public.[/quote]
Like? Isn’t it our money they’re spending? Shouldn’t we know all of what they’re proposing we spend it on?
As for Shays wanting $300 million: oink!
[quote comment="14157"][quote comment="14156"]Huh?[/quote]
…don’t touch their beloved Shays is what they are saying…as if Shays never criticized a fellow Republican
[/quote]
Could you quote where either Chris or I said that?
Why is it so hard for you to simply say that everyone, R or D, should disclose this information?
[quote comment="14164"][quote post="674"]Frankly, I can think of many downsides to making every last request public.[/quote]
Like? Isn’t it our money they’re spending? Shouldn’t we know all of what they’re proposing we spend it on?[/quote]
Well, now knowing that Shays is trying to obtain $1.75 Million for Greenwich’s tony Bruce Museum, he can be attacked for either getting the funding, or for not getting the funding. (I can imagine the calls from angry socialites when Shays fails to get the federal government to chip in!)
What if some of the requests are just courtesies?
What about the campaign mailing showing that Shays only obtained funding for 3 out of 102 requests? (e.g. only.)
So politically, it could be a dumb maneuver, particularly when opponents will cherry-pick what is asked for, (as I have above.)
Finally, in answer to your question, I’m okay if what everyone gets is publicly disclosed.
Sandy why did you leave out the names of the Democrats who got money?
But why do we find this to be acceptable TBCT? Seriously – it isn’t the federal government’s job to fund local projects. At the very least, we should know what they are trying to do down there in D.C. if they are going to be earmarking money in bills; Often-times, these are bills that have no monetary impact at all, but somebody convinces someone else to vote for it with an earmark for their district. Is this right? No, you’re damned right it isn’t but it still happens today.
And above all, the issue at hand is the fact that the Democrats promised to eliminate this practice while they are, in fact, continuing on with it. Party affiliation aside, its wrong. Part of the appeal of the D’s in the last election was this very promise.
Now, putting country ahead of party…I just wish somebody would have the balls to say enough is enough!
Hey DR–
I’m basically with you. Slipping secret ear-marks into bills should be banned. It’s a despicable practice.
In terms of getting rid of all ear-marks, I don’t know. At root it sounds like a good idea, but in practice? I presume there are a lot of good things that wouldn’t get done without federal $$$.
I have mixed feelings.
[quote comment="14170"]Hey DR–
I’m basically with you. Slipping secret ear-marks into bills should be banned. It’s a despicable practice.
In terms of getting rid of all ear-marks, I don’t know. At root it sounds like a good idea, but in practice? I presume there are a lot of good things that wouldn’t get done without federal $$$.
I have mixed feelings.[/quote]
I’m sure you are right TBCT. But if they actually did get rid of ALL earmarks, think of how much extra money we should have in our pockets to pay for it on the local level.
But at the very least, the secret earmarks have to go and the practice of trading earmarks for votes needs to go. It’s garbage and we deserve better from our elected representatives.
The “catch 22″ about the earmarks that are contained within these bills, is how difficult it is for members of the public to get information about them.
Unless you live or travel to Washington DC, there is no way to independently research the earmark requests contained in House spending bills.
I work in Washington.
Two weeks ago, I visited the offices of two committees (Armed Services & Transportation and Infrastrature).
Of the two committees, I was able to easily research the earmarks contained within the Defense Authorization Bill. They are in large binders in the Armed Services office. However, you have to give your name in order to view them. No copies allowed, but you can use pen/paper.
Second, the House Transportation & Infrastructure committee gave me the runaround. The staff could not locate the earmark files.
Interesting, they told me if I was with the press, I could view the file immediately. As a member of the public, I needed to call a designated staffer and come back for an appointment.
[quote post="674"]Interesting, they told me if I was with the press, I could view the file immediately. As a member of the public, I needed to call a designated staffer and come back for an appointment.[/quote]
That’s outrageous! This sort of information should be freely available online for everybody to see.
Unfortunately it is not.
And you have members of Congress like Chris Murphy going around the 5th CD telling people how much of a reformer he is.
Voters should beware of Chris Murphy. Says one thing in CT and does another here in DC.
And, just today majorityap.com is reporting that a shady lobbyist for the Democratic Freshmen PAC – a group that Murphy denies even being involved with – resigned as its Treasurer.
Kind of funny Murphy denies being connected to that PAC and gets caught in photographs taken at their events!!!
http://majorityap.com/majorityap_com_report_results_in_lobbyist_s_removal
In the best of worlds, earmarks should not exist. However, they do assist individual districts (and congresspersons). It would be great if the system were changed so that each congressperson would have a limited number of earmark requests, the requests were part of the public record, and those actually funded were also part of the record. I am sure that the Congress can come up with some way to ‘legalize’ a limited number of Congressional favors but giving full exposure to the favors (vice an under the table, midnight slip into a bill). Then, if the public decided that the congressional earmarks for their district were bogus they could throw the bum out at the next election.
Headless – thanks for your work on this post. Just wondering:
When Chris Shays was in the majority party, did he also disclose his earmark REQUESTS, or just the list of pork that he successfully returned to the district?
I’ve been searching and can’t find any info on Shays disclosing his requests when Republicans were in the majority, but I could very well be wrong. Do you know?
In the Senate, Senator Coburn (R-OK) and Senator Obama (D-IL) have been working to have a database of earmark requests made available on the internet. I saw some news that it passed, but am unsure if it just passed the Senate, or if it only applies to Senate earmarks. Anyone here know?
[quote comment="14182"]Headless – thanks for your work on this post. Just wondering:
When Chris Shays was in the majority party, did he also disclose his earmark REQUESTS, or just the list of pork that he successfully returned to the district?
I’ve been searching and can’t find any info on Shays disclosing his requests when Republicans were in the majority, but I could very well be wrong. Do you know?[/quote]
I’m not sure what your point is. Or why that makes a difference. Why don’t we deal with now. It’s wrong. (And yes, I thought it was wrong when the R’s were in power. I recall that I included comments about it in a post I did back then too.)
Point is, Murphy and others campaigned on the issue, and now they aren’t saying Boo about it Maura…let talk about that. If you wanna call yourself a reformer [Murphy], well reform goddamn it! Shays never made that claim in his campaign first of all and, secondly, the fact remains, when asked NOW, he DID disclose his earmarks. Murphy didn’t.
Sorry if I came off a bit testy in that post; it’s been a long day…
This sounds like an investigative story that the Courant might be interested in. Does anyone think that will happen?
For a long time, Shays has disclosed both what he requested as well as what he actually gets in legislation. Dodd, DeLauro and Lieberman have always disclosed what they got but not what they requested. So what??????
[quote post="674"]Seriously – it isn’t the federal government’s job to fund local projects. [/quote]
Maybe not if you are a true libertarian or something but the issue is what’s disclosed and when!
[quote comment="14182"]Headless – thanks for your work on this post. Just wondering:
When Chris Shays was in the majority party, did he also disclose his earmark REQUESTS, or just the list of pork that he successfully returned to the district?
I’ve been searching and can’t find any info on Shays disclosing his requests when Republicans were in the majority, but I could very well be wrong. Do you know?[/quote]
As I understand it he has disclosed them before, but I am not entirely certain, nor do I have a source I can cite on that.
[quote comment="14138"]I would think this would be a difficult time for Republicans to discuss “transparency in government” considering what has been going on with Senators Deluca and Congressman wannabe Cappiello who also accepted campaign contributions from the mob. The Mob gave-they accepted.[/quote]
Mua ha ha ha! I want everyone to take a good look at this. Nevermind transparency in government… this here is a textbook lesson in transparency in dissembling.
Unless of couse, the author here expects us to believe that I shouldn’t not write about the fact that Chris Murphy has done a 180 on an issue that helped elect him because the GOP state chairman got a DUI.
If that’s the case, I hope sandy won’t lecture us on ethics in government because Patrick Kennedy crashed his car drunk at 3:00 in the morning near the capitol.
Am I missing something or is the post talking about Earmark requests and the linked article (which is not actually during the campaign, but after it – although I know that he said similar things during the campaign) talking about revealing who actually placed Earmarks into bills?
A pretty good argument can be made that requests should be made public also, but that is separate from a discussion of broken campaign promises. The link in the article doesn’t seem to go with the latter (or the text of the post). I’m not saying that Murphy, et al., didn’t say something about requests during the campaign, but the link doesn’t prove it; both because it isn’t actually during the campaign, and, more importantly, because Murphy doesn’t seem to be talking about Earmark requests.
[quote post="674"]As I understand it he has disclosed them before, but I am not entirely certain, nor do I have a source I can cite on that. [/quote]
Toucan said he did at #42, HH…that should be good enough for ya
and chalk one up for free speech –::: Shays-Meehan/McCain-Feingold got partially shot down by the Supremes yesterday…free speech is often guano, I will agree but the governement shouldn’t be stifling it — let folks sort itout themselves — negative issue ads often hurt the person they are intended to help so…..
Yes… well… the toucan has spoken, so it’s good enough for me
That’s better, LOL,LOL…..
You must log in to post a comment.