Capps Loses $13.8 Million in Earmarks

Nice projects but there is NO money. We must stop spending money that is not there.

Definitely no money... bring the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan, cut off all aid to Egypt and Israel, and downsize our military bases in Europe and Asia... that will balance the federal budget.

Capps supported new offshore drilling at Tranquillion Ridge-

joey racano
www.earthsourcemedia.com

I agree with Loneranger and Sevendolphins.

Actually, Queen Pelosi pledged to end earmarks two years ago. She provably lied. Capps said she'd only serve two terms. She provably lied. Boxer said she supported small business. She provably lied. Obama said he wouldn't cut taxes on the rich. He provably lied. They all lie.

Our financial problems have nothing to do with earmarks. This is just republican/ faux conservative obstructionism. They don't understand how representative government works or how the economy works. That is why we are in the mess we're in.

The Bush/Cheney Administration wars, mismanagement, financial policies, lack of oversight and general malfeasance pulled the rug out from the world economy. Now the republicans/conservatives are using mean spirited policies to drag us further into a hole.

For current factual and intelligent information turn off corporate fox news type organizations and start supporting our president so we can get out of this hole that the previous archaic administration got us into. http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/1...

There are numerous ways to balance the budget. I like sevendolphins approach.

What people don't often realize is that the federal govt. is controlled by industries and international business interests. It has very little to do with "We the People".

All the tax money spent on the two wars in the middle east bulsters many defense corporations and international oil companies, many of which employ people right here in Santa Barbara. The money spent on campaign election propaganda (adds) is huge. Americans continue to vote for republicans and democrats who support these industries and business interests. Lack of independent thinking and a desire to conform to the norm will most likely keep the status quo alive and well.

Do know that Congressional Representative and Tea Party darling MIchele Bachmann wants to redefine "earmarks" to exclude transportation projects, as reported by her local mainstream newspaper:

http://www.startribune.com/politics/b...

Accordingly, the $10 million for the freeway over Carpinteria Creek would not be an earmark under that definition by Bachmann.

I think both projects mentioned in the article should compete for Federal funds through an objective process, especially considering a hundred other Central Coast freeway improvements that should be a higher priority for that $10 million, such as the freeway widening project also in Carpinteria.

However, "earmarks" are hardly a fiscal problem when compared with the ginormous spending elsewhere in the Federal budget and the deliberate decisions to give tax breaks to the very, very rich.

>>"bring the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan, cut off all aid to Egypt and Israel, and downsize our military bases in Europe and Asia... that will balance the federal budget."<<

Not even close.

Earmarks are NOT the "spending problem" that plagues the United State's government. The Outrageous War and Pentagon budget represent over half of our GDP. This is WAR spending, not Defense spending. We need to call it what it is. The "War Department" was changed to the "Defense Department" in 1948, when the American people had caught on and were sick and tired of warfare after World War II. The Military Industrial Complex that controls our government needed to mislead the people into continuing to fund the perpetual wars of our Empire State, so they tried to convince us it was all about national "defense".
The other major "spending" problem is that the richest 2% of our population do not pay their fair progressive share of taxes! Wake up. There IS MONEY, we just need to change some things to get it where it is needed and away from those who don't need it!

We need to put this in perspective.

Earmarks were an extremely small part of the omnibus bill. Less than 1%. They are not the source of our deficit problem nor do they contribute to it very much. But for arguments sake, lets say earmarks were a indeed a problem. The fiscally responsible way to end earmarks would be to allow them for two more years, than stop them. Cutting them off instantly means many projects that are partially completeld will be terminated ... that's not a good way to spend our tax money.

How about focusing on things that really contribute to our deficit like two wars in the middle east.

Aid construction of a cancer center? Track sex offenders? Provide equipment for police? Flood control? Can't do it--the deficit. Tax breaks for the wealthy--what deficit?

>>"The Outrageous War and Pentagon budget represent over half of our GDP."<<

Not even close.

What if if you want an earmark that cost x you need to offset with x cost cuts.
And given the defict maybe 2x cut would make more sense.

Damn, Pinatubo, there you go again, bringing provable fact into the discussion.

As many have stated, earmarks are not a significant part of the budget problem. And while they are at present 'how the system works', they need not be. So rather that divert this into the usual diatribes against Bush, the war, corporations, rich people, etc., why not seriously consider the idea of a gradual elimination. The issue IMO is more one of statesmanship than money.

And BTW, for all you who hate (i.e. envy) the rich types, the extension of cuts for middle and lower income taxpayers and the extension of unemployment benefits are about 3 times the cost of extending the tax cuts on the higher incomes. Compromise, folks, compromise. it means you don't get 100% of what you want, but you do get something.

And also BTW, for all you anti-war types, you forgot to mention Obama's war in Afghanistan.

"Actually, Queen Pelosi ..."
--JohnLocke

Cute John. I can't wait to read your comments about King Boehner.

"Actually, Queen Pelosi pledged to end earmarks two years ago. She provably lied. Capps said she'd only serve two terms. She provably lied. Boxer said she supported small business. She provably lied. Obama said he wouldn't cut taxes on the rich. He provably lied. They all lie." -JohnLocke-

I remember Capps' self-imposed term limits and then running again and again...

Who could forget Bush Sr.'s sermon to the public "Read my lips...no new taxes".

I wonder however, if these people really believed in what they said and were corrupted by that same annoying part of human nature (to which we all are subject) of greed, or even possibly the idea that sacrificing integrity is justified for the greater good.

Hey SezMe, let's wait and see how Boehner behaves - we know how Pelosi behaved. Did you catch her interview with Diane Sawyer? After presiding over two years of hyperpartisanship followed by the biggest shellacking the Dems ever had, her comment on her career was "job well done". Jeez, what a tool. And a fool.

Thanks for the sanity, DonMcDermott.

First, earmarks are a very small part of the budget, accounting for somewhere between $17 and $67 billion, depending on what is considered an earmark.

Second, eliminating earmarks doesn't necessarily reduce spending. Many earmarks merely specify how a portion of an allocation is spent. The allocation will be spent even if the earmark is eliminated, but not in the way it was earmarked. In other words, eliminating these earmarks puts power in the hands of bureaucrats rather than elected members of Congress.

Third, earmarks create jobs. Working people pay taxes. Unemployed people are paid with tax dollars. So eliminating earmarks doesn't necessarily save money.

Dear John Locke:

RE your comment: “BTW, for all you who hate (i.e. envy) the rich types, the extension of cuts for middle and lower income taxpayers and the extension of unemployment benefits are about 3 times the cost of extending the tax cuts on the higher incomes.”

Doing the math here, 3 times the amount spent on tax cuts and unemployment insurance going to 98% of the people, still means the richest 2% benefit disproportionately -- something like 16 to 1.

Further, the experience of the tax cuts under Bush II – even with the horrendous year-after-year deficits they created – demonstrates that cutting taxes on the rich does NOT produce jobs in abundance as compared with the Clinton tax increases that, for example, generated ten times as many jobs over a similar time period.

So, let’s lower the volume and try to keep our eye on the ball because Osama Bin Laden is still out there despite Bush II’s assertion of “Mission Accomplished”.

"After presiding over two years of hyperpartisanship ..."
-- JohnLocke

Here, let me fix that for you: "After presiding over two years of hyperpartisanship by the Republicans ..." And, yes, I have evidence for such a claim. Namely, record number of filibusters and huge record number of holds put on Administration appointments and record number of holds on judges. Your evidence.

And, by the way, when a (proven) corrupt Republican Speaker rams through his extremely partisan agenda, he gets called The Hammer for getting the job done while you call Pelosi "hyperpartisan" for mostly working with Republicans to pass legislation that mostly is approved by Americans. Hyperventilate much?

I'll thank you, SezMe, to offer your own opinion without claiming to "fix" mine. Actually, hyperpartisanship reigns throughout both parties, from the lowest (Das) to the highest (Pelosi). Some of the Tea Party folks are the worst. But when you say that "Pelosi worked with Republicans to pass legislation that mostly is approved by Americans", can you cite a single example (hint - The Reps were systematically excluded from practically everything, most esp Obamacare, which the majority of Americans do NOT approve of, according to polls in national media)? What color is the sky on your planet? And yes, the Reps did similarly during their period of control. It's part of being the party of NO (i.e. the party not in power), just as the Dems were during both Bushes and Clinton. Just a matter of whose ass, er, ox, etc.

BTW, the tax bill only passed at all because the Reps refused to pass anything else during the well-named lame duck session until the tax bill was resolved. The Dems had two years while they controlled both houses AND the White House to pass a tax bill and FAILED. Similarly, the recent bill to fund ongoing government was one of 12 normal spending bills per year that the Dems FAILED to pass - finally the most recent one passed - with compromises.. So let's focus on discouraging partisanism from ALL sides and on the value of compromise, as was envisioned in the design of our government. BTW, compromise, as opposed to one side taking all the marbles, resulted in the tax bill finally passing. Thank God for the filibuster and the occasional smack upside the head for the stubborn and myopic.

And, Carmelo, what do BinLaden and Bush have to do with this discussion?

It would be interesting to hear an explanation of why

a) During the Clinton administration, 23 million jobs were created, the deficit was being reversed to a projected surplus, the SS fund was well-funded (since Reagan had raised baby-boomer contributions to twice so that present retirees and future baby-boomer retirees were covered) and the fund was not being raided (lockbox), and the unemployment rate was somewhere about 4-5% at the END of Clinton's term

b) During the Bush administration, only 1 million jobs were created, the deficit was increased to amount that equaled all presidents before him combined, jobs were being lost at a rate of about 700,000 per month and unemployment was over 7% at the END of his term. Furthermore, Paulson had to literally beg on his knees for a bailout to save not only the US but the international banking system.

If anyone can explain this, possibly they will have an idea of how to fix our current mess.

and then this makes for interesting reading as well:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/20...

And more food for thought:

Jim Corr: Top-down engineered financial crash designed to take over Europe
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85RZ_h...

The Money Masters - How International Bankers Gained Control of America
http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc...

What a worthless rubber stamp she is.

Hey Tabatha, explanation: Since 2000 the U.S. has been taken over by criminals, real terrorists, and enemies of the state. Bring our troops home to fight and jail the real crooks; those who are systematically weakening our country for their own profit and whoring out America the beautiful for quick riches.

A lot of the so-called Conservative government and economic experts here apparently never learned is that earmarks are one way that tax money paid by a district returns to a district, providing jobs and services. Even anti-tax advocate Ron Paul votes for earmarks for his district.
And my wealthy friends tell me they don't need tax cuts.

You have friends?

I realize friends must be a foreign concept to you, but yes people such as myself are blessed with many of them.