Poll: Federal Budget Has 8500 ‘Earmarks’

19 comments on this post so far. Add yours!

• 

  BrandonHansen on March 04 at 2:08 p.m.

  “I was hoping for more fiscal restraint.”

  How much is this bill going to help us in the long run anyways?

  Brandon Hansen
  Just South of North
  www.justsouthofnorth.com

• 

  Charlie on March 04 at 2:13 p.m.

  Business as usual and Mr. Obama said he would not sign anything with ear marks in it. Oh right, same game different name.

• 

  hmoffsuite on March 04 at 3:18 p.m.

  Not surprised at all. Like Rahm Emanuel said “Never waste a good crisis”. Hurry, hurry, pass the bills. Don’t need to show them to me, just pass them. No financial restraint whatsoever. Honest to goodness, guys, he is simply trying to do too much, way too fast, and that is when pork flies. Each of these several large expenditures of late is a BIG deal. Everything needs to be done properly if done at all. I am ashamed of Obama for letting this happen. Its all about the Party folks. And Obama is just a player within it. Democrats should be embarrassed over all this. .

• 

  Me on March 04 at 3:19 p.m.

  Not surprised. If it walks like one and talks like one it is still a duck (or politician).

• 

  BethB on March 04 at 3:26 p.m.

  I was hoping for more fiscal restraint. Actually, that’s not the right term since these earmarks make up only 1 percent of the overall budget. I was hoping that we could just be done with earmarks. Sigh.

• 

  hhuseland on March 04 at 6:23 p.m.

  I was a t a meeting with an official from the State and also the Homeland Security Department the other night. They explained that the politically incorrect word,”Pork,” no longer applies. It is now called bacon flavored earmarks.

• 

  Charlie on March 04 at 8:35 p.m.

  Herb, how about some Chitlins instead of bacon?

• 

  HonestGeorge on March 04 at 10:34 p.m.

  An ‘earmark’ rebuilt the levees in St.Maries following the 1996 floods. I guess that if its evil or not is in the eyes of the beholder.

• 

  Bent on March 04 at 11:14 p.m.

  DFO, the story is about the Fiscal Year 2009 Budget — Not the “Stimulus Bill.” Congress failed to pass a budget last (election) year because it was loaded with earmarks, including some for our area, as is always the case… just as honest george points out above…

  The bi-state aquifer study was funded with earmarks. Much of the Superfund cleanup in the Silver Valley is funded with earmarks. A lot of transportation and other public infrastructure projects are funded that way.

  Not.All.Of.These.Projects.Are.Pork… The term “earmark” is merely a political hockey puck right now. The real issue that is being debated in DC is how do we legitimately (and legally) fund our region’s projects with the taxes we pay in? And, of course, who controls that spending….

  That’s right folks we already pay federal taxes, and we have to find a way to get those taxes home to the publc projects we need funded. Are we to trust the Senators and Congressman we send back there to ensure our needs are met? Or trust the federal agencies to prioritize and fund our public projects? Or worse yet, leave it to the state decision makers in Boise?

  Earmark reform is good and needed, but lets’s not throw the baby out with the bath water

• 

  DFO on March 04 at 11:18 p.m.

  Thanx, Bent; got it fixed. File this under “Bloggin’ at the speed of light …”

« Back to Huckleberries Online

• ›Scanner traffic