Over at Right Wing News, they ahve posted a chart so you can more easily follow what WAS in the bill, and how the Democrats have changed it to keep everything secret.Porkbusters obtained the latest version of the "Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007’’, and as expected, the Democratic leadership has worked some funny business to dilute some of the Act's key provisions.
Based on what we're hearing from those who would know, key changes include:
--The old version (passed by the Senate) required conference / committee reports to list all earmarks and required the chairman of the relevant committee to distribute the earmark list. But the new version of the bill allows the Majority Leader (as opposed to the Senate parliamentarian, a more objective judge) to determine whether or not a conference report complies with the disclosure requirements.--The new version removes the requirement for earmark lists posted online to be in searchable format.
--The new version removes the provision that prevented any bill from being considered at all prior to the disclosure of earmarks; now the text only prohibits a formal motion to proceed, which leaves open a procedural loophole that would allow bills to slip through without disclosure.
--The old version prohibited earmarks which benefit a Member, their staff, or their family/their staff’s family. The new version waters that down and only prohibits earmarks that would “only” affect those parties --- which means so long as you can make a case that your shiny new project affects at least one person other than you positively, you’re all set.
But don't take our word for it: you can download a PDF of the new text right here. Check it out, and if you find more nasty surprises in there, please leave a comment and tell us what you've discovered...
Now, you've probably heard the term "earmark" quite a bit in the news, especially when it comes to many in the "most ethical congress...EVER!!!" putting in their requests for more money to go to catfish hatcheries in Lonesome Turtle, NV or, say, a museum commemorating the human dungpile that was Woodstock. But just what is an "earmark"? Well, according to an article in Slate Magazine online,
No one can agree on the precise definition. In general, the word "earmark" refers to any element of a spending bill that allocates money for a very specific thing—a given project, say, or location, or institution. For example, if Congress passed a budget that gave a certain amount of money to the National Park Service as a whole, no one would consider it an earmark. But if Congress added a line to the budget specifying that some of that money must go toward the preservation of a single building—definitely an earmark.in other words, it's pork. And people like Dingy Harry, and "Happy Jack" Murtha, and many of the other "reformers" don't want you to know that, contrary to what they told you during their campaigns, they don't have any more desire to raise ethical standards than they do to have their eyeballs plucked out. But, the American voters bought their lies, and now we're stuck with them. And the beat goes on...
Some earmarks are easy to spot, like this year's $500,000 grant to the Teapot Museum in Sparta, N.C. But an expenditure doesn't have to be an earmark just because it's specific. Defense spending bills, for example, come with a very detailed accounting of how each dollar will be spent. When the DoD submits a request for funds, it might tell Congress exactly how much money would be used to buy a particular kind of fighter plane. In another context, this level of specificity would merit the scarlet E; for a defense bill, it's business as usual. (Using the broadest definition, you could say that all defense spending is "earmarked.")
