Politics – The Senate voted Thursday to make lawmakers disclose more about their efforts to fund pet projects and raise money from lobbyists, a move some called the biggest advance in congressional ethics in decades.
Anything is better than what we endured. Just possibly our elected representatives are becoming in tune with their electorate, I hope so. Usually I berate our elected officials, will continue with Bush and company, but I sincerely hope change is in the air and if a success, congratulations are in order. Bush notwithstanding.
We must never become apathetic to the actions of our servants in power, they serve us not themselves.
lol...dream on....there is so many loopholes as we always find in due time. Kinda like the last ethics reform item that lobbyist cant give you a bid donation of money but they can supply you with a private plane as long as you pay for what normal first class rates on a com airline.
In addition, "The bill "has completely gutted the earmark reform provisions we overwhelmingly passed in January," said Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona"
So what does this bill do....the same thing that was already passed???
or this "McCain and others, however, said senators could circumvent the requirements by stating that prompt disclosure was not technically feasible, or by having the majority leader declare a bill earmark-free"
So if they have the earmark in a party that holds the majority...then they get to look good for their electorant...and whom doesnt hold power will get to look as a do nothing.
Not forgetting, "Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, said it was ludicrous to suggest someone in his position would "cheat and lie" to hide earmarks."
ROFL...Harry Reid that made his family millions on earmarks in construction and building ownership that was bought within weeks of the govt buying the property for something else. Good person to trust to me. Thank GOD that he isnt president bc he could make our fav...GW look good.
Forgot, just who are the 14 representatives who voted against this bill. Their constituents should be told so they can eject them the minute the opportunity arises.
UNLESS they thought the provisions weakened the earmark legislation they just passed in January
If that is the case, then we need to find out why 83 of them wanted to gut the requirements passed earlier
Knowing how Congress operates, I'd be more inclined to believe that 83 of them thought the provisions in the January legislation were too stringent
There is a reason to be skeptical
From a CNN report:
Lawmakers seeking targeted spending projects, or earmarks, would have to publicize their plans in advance - critics said the requirements are hardly airtight.
The bill "has completely gutted the earmark reform provisions we overwhelmingly passed in January," said Sen. McCain R-AZ - (if this is true, they have already weakened requirements they passed in January. Looks like they needed more wiggle room)
Lawmakers seeking earmarks would have to publicize their plans 48 hours before a Senate vote. They would have to certify they have no direct financial interest in the items.
McCain and others, however, said senators could circumvent the requirements by stating that prompt disclosure was not technically feasible, or by having the majority leader declare a bill earmark-free.
It's kind of sad that the people we send to Washington to represent us have to have LAWS to make themselves ethical. Very sad. Why do we keep electing people like that? I suppose it's because they LIE to us (often by OMISSION) and somehow convince us that they ARE ethical. We only find out the truth after it's too late. A bigger question: why do we KEEP electing them? For THAT I have no answer.
Here is another opinion on the new and "improved" language:
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/dems-unveil...
removal of a ban on trading earmarks for votes
transferal of authority to certify compliance with earmark disclosure to chairmen or the majority leader rather than the Senate parliamentarian.
Senior Democratic aides asserted the new ethics bill merely brings the original Senate earmark language which DeMint often noted was identical to Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-Calif.) in line with what the House passed as a rules change in January.
Members retain the right to offer amendments to strike earmarks that they believe were not disclosed properly, although the new bill does not guarantee consideration.
Prohibiting only earmarks that exclusively benefit lawmakers and their families, as opposed to benefits that include business partners or neighbors, is "obscene," Coburn said.
"The new language mirrors existing Senate rules which have done nothing to prevent these serious conflicts of interest," Coburn said.
Looks like they have indeed weakened the legislation passed in January
We need to find out who wanted the legislation weakened - there are 83 of them
Not a member? Sign-up today!
2jojoyo
mrrmr160
hyooo25
peter.andreson4
getbackerzoo
daviannewton651975
romeohoover1968
uncogito
popbob
qilla
ind06
doreen274
GlamourGirl
cosmogenium
Archlander
dandt1612
Macas
Tessylo
_kam0_
joeblowe
jeannie35
pratt
saltyveruca
Havasu1
avpd85
Schochee5
gfarral
tynxy
buzzazz
jaern
Donnaich
christopher1
nostalgia
MyWayOnNow
msaleem
focuspuller
SweetKari
lovelytxwoman
agentX
lakeside55
fnbdjdjji
graghavenderraj
lenseview
STONERS
Raiderwall
TechnologyExpert
Oxyon
queenb727
texangelwings
GHOSTWHOWALKS
About Propeller | Frequently Asked Questions | Help
© 2003-2008 Propeller. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
19)
Vote
Pardon my skepticism, but...