|
February 1, 2008 | When Hillary Clinton was squirming in her seat during the recent State of the Union Address - it wasn't hemorrhoids causing the discomfort. Our boy Bush was speaking about the abuse of congressional earmarks and how they were tacked on to congressional appropriations without having even been voted on.
Generally, an "earmark" is any specific mention of a spending bill that allocates money for a very specific thing or given project. The Office of Management and Budget has an earmark database that is an interesting read. "The people's trust in their government is undermined by congressional earmarks," Bush said in his State of the Union address and referring to an executive order he potentially may issue, Bush said, "If these items are truly worth funding, the Congress should debate them in the open and hold a public vote." Bush coming out against earmarks now is, however, questionable as he said and did nothing in particular while the GOP ruled Congress for the first 6 years of his administration. While the definitions of earmarks are varied in their generality and specificity - it should be noted that earmarks to appropriations are added mostly by leadership in the Congress. It is a method of assuring political spoils and rewards for - most times - toeing the party line as defined by the party leadership. As the title of this screed indicates, Hillary Clinton is the worst abuser of earmarks compared with any other presidential candidate - BY FAR. The recent article that has brought Hillary's practices into the light was written by John Wilson, who is an Obama supporter and has written with that obvious bias. The information and links within the article are - however - important for every voter to understand. The claims that Hillary and the "Clinton Machine" are beltway business as usual seem to be validated. Read the article here, Clinton By Far Worst Abuser Of Earmarks, John K. Wilson, posted January 30, 2008 | 03:27 PM (EST) at Huffington Post
___________________________________ 2.1.2008 |