07 Jan 10
He wants a set of Ginsu steak knives.
No seriously, though. I am pissed him BUT...
Working the system to gain something for your constituents is a lot different than for your own, personal gain. Is it not?
I guess I'm mad for different reasons. The Republicans are notorious for being able to work with each other in lockstep. In a situation where we need literally 100% consensus from Democrats *and* Independents, it's pretty crappy to hold a vital bill hostage like he did. If he did so out of principle I would be more understanding.
07 Jan 10
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperLol,
He wants a set of Ginsu steak knives.
No seriously, though. I am pissed him BUT...
Working the system to gain something for your constituents is a lot different than for your own, personal gain. Is it not?
I guess I'm mad for different reasons. The Republicans are notorious for being able to work with each other in lockstep. In a situati ...[text shortened]... a vital bill hostage like he did. If he did so out of principle I would be more understanding.
I heard Arnold today:
Nebraska got the corn, we got the Husks
07 Jan 10
Originally posted by Hugh GlassHe certainly has made a national spectacle of himself. Everyone knows what he did was legal, but, at the same time, undefensable. In fact, if I heard right, I think it is being challenged in the courts. Anyone hear about that?
Lol,
I heard Arnold today:
Nebraska got the corn, we got the Husks
07 Jan 10
Originally posted by whodeyAs my civil procedure professor used to say, you can always sue. The question is whether you can win. I'm sure someone will challenge Nelson in court; but unfortunately, what he did was still legal (if reprehensible).
He certainly has made a national spectacle of himself. Everyone knows what he did was legal, but, at the same time, undefensable. In fact, if I heard right, I think it is being challenged in the courts. Anyone hear about that?
07 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76And they will challenge fining and locking people up for not buying health care for it not being constitutional. The bottom line is, who cares? The inmates are in charge now. Whatever they want happens.
As my civil procedure professor used to say, you can always sue. The question is whether you can win. I'm sure someone will challenge Nelson in court; but unfortunately, what he did was still legal (if reprehensible).
07 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyAnd the only way this sort of thing stops is if the people of Nebraska vote him out of office because of it.
He certainly has made a national spectacle of himself. Everyone knows what he did was legal, but, at the same time, undefensable. In fact, if I heard right, I think it is being challenged in the courts. Anyone hear about that?
Pork will stop only when voters choose "good government" even if it means making themselves poorer. Let me know when the pork sprouts wings.
07 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by MelanerpesBut that is just it. This is not about Ben Nelson, this is about the system that creted Ben Nelson. Congress is still Congress and this sort of thing will continue....unless serious reform is in the works, which it is not. Heck, Obama promised to end earmarks. Just look at the success he has had. Althought it might help actually taking steps to end earmarks.
And the only way this sort of thing stops is if the people of Nebraska vote him out of office because of it.
Pork will stop only when voters choose "good government" even if it means making themselves poorer. Let me know when the pork sprouts wings.
Can anyone stand up and shout, "Liar"!! Not that anyone cares mind you.
07 Jan 10
Originally posted by whodeyActually, Pres. B.O. promised to ban earmarks in the bailout.
But that is just it. This is not about Ben Nelson, this is about the system that creted Ben Nelson. Congress is still Congress and this sort of thing will continue....unless serious reform is in the works, which it is not. Heck, Obama promised to end earmarks. Just look at the success he has had. Althought it might help actually taking steps to end earmarks.
Can anyone stand up and shout, "Liar"!! Not that anyone cares mind you.
&NR=1
He also promised to reform the earmark system.
&NR=1
Truth or lie?
I'm still not sure if Rep. Nelson's actions fall under the definition of an earmark-
Earmarks are funds provided by the Congress for projects, programs, or grants where the purported congressional direction (whether in statutory text, report language, or other communication) circumvents otherwise applicable merit-based or competitive allocation processes, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the executive branch to manage its statutory and constitutional responsibilities pertaining to the funds allocation process.
07 Jan 10
2 edits
Originally posted by monster truck"earmarks" are generally things for the home district that are sneaked into appropriations legislation, often when no one is "looking".
Actually, Pres. B.O. promised to ban earmarks in the bailout.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ue1I0O5l85E&NR=1
He also promised to reform the earmark system.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuR4b2RzxlA&NR=1
Truth or lie?
I'm still not sure if Rep. Nelson's actions fall under the definition of an earmark-
Earmarks are funds provided by the Con ...[text shortened]... its statutory and constitutional responsibilities pertaining to the funds allocation process.
Nelson's actions are what they call "horse-trading" -- special concessions that are made to get a swing vote to swing in favor. Unlike earmarks, everyone is very much "looking" -- even as everyone favoring the bill may be holding their noses while making the deal.
And I fear that there is almost nothing that can be realistically done to eliminate either practice. Not unless voters from the home district are willing to fall on their own swords to send a message.