This Bloomberg article rips the new ‘reform’ bill just passed by Congress. As well it should. Here’s how they’re ripping the legislation:

For example, the House Appropriations Committee provides the information in reports available online, although they aren’t searchable by keyword. What’s more, details about the projects are scattered throughout the documents. While the names of the earmarks and their sponsors are typically listed in the back of the reports, the amount of money provided for them is listed elsewhere, forcing inquiring minds to go on a laborious scavenger hunt.

The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee makes its earmark request letters available only by appointment. Researchers must take notes, because the committee doesn’t allow the public to make photocopies of the letters.

These clowns work for us. When we demand transparency and ethical behavior, they’d better deliver. The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee method of making earmark requests ‘available’ sounds very secretive. It’s difficult to imagine a more twisted way of making earmarks transparent.

In fact, a cynical person might think that the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is making it difficult because they’re trying to make it difficult. Considering the amount of earmarks for bridges, roads, etc., it’s perfectly reasonable to think that that’s their goal.

The truth is that we won’t have transparency until the earmarks are their own amendment to the bill that they’re going into. We should demand that the earmarks list the earmark’s author and the amount spent on the earmark be the first two lines of the request. We should further require that the earmarks be part of each committee’s website. All it would take is a tab on each committee’s website. The title of that tab should be ‘Earmarks’. The database should include which bill the earmarks will be part of.

That would be real transparency.

Another of Pelosi’s earmarks was $2.5 million to Bioquiddity, Inc., a San Francisco biotech company with nine employees, to continue developing drug-infusion pumps. Bioquiddity President Josh Kriesel, who ran unsuccessfully as a Republican for the state legislature in 2002, has donated $6,000 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee since last September. The company received a total of $3.9 million in earmarks in the last two years. Kriesel declined to comment directly on the earmarks.

On second thought, let’s rename that tab “Re-election Slush Fund.” Another viable name for that tab would be the ‘quid pro quo register’. Is it any wonder why Americans think so ill of politicians? With this type of legalized corruption, why should we think that our taxes will be spent wisely?

It isn’t unreasonable to think that the money spent on buying votes for re-election should’ve been spent on fixing bridges and expanding our interstate system. Politicians who whine about the cost of the Iraq war are the biggest earmark abusers in the House. The loudest critic of the war has been John Murtha. He’s also the ‘king’ of the ‘earmark championships‘. Ms. Pelosi isn’t far behind.

Pelosi and Murtha aren’t the only troublemakers:

The House version of the annual defense-spending bill, for example, includes many such requests. Representative Peter Visclosky, an Indiana Democrat, has 28 earmarks in the bill. Five are for colleges or the Indiana National Guard. The rest are for companies, including 11 outside his state or district. He declined to comment.

I haven’t tracked down the specifics of those earmarks outside his district but I don’t think I’m going out on a limb in saying that they’re likely going to companies that have contributed to Rep. Visclosky’s campaigns.

“It baffles me how people can complain bitterly about Halliburton and no-bid contracts and then lard up a bill with literally thousands of earmarks to companies when that’s all they are, no-bid contracts,” says Representative Jeff Flake, an Arizona Republican, referring to criticism of the Bush administration’s sole-source contract with the Houston-based company during the Iraq war. Flake is noted for not requesting earmarks and publicizing those of his colleagues.

Ouch. That accusation will leave a mark.

Flake’s dissatisfaction is reflected in public-opinion polls. A June 7-10 Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll found 62 percent of 1,056 registered voters said Democrats in Congress were governing in a “business as usual” manner. Thirty percent said Democrats were working to bring about fundamental change.

Considering the fact that Democrats promised to be change agents, this poll isn’t good news. The NRCC should run a series of ads against vulnerable Democrats. The first set should be titled the ‘Quid pro quo Democrats’; another should be called the ‘Do Almost Nothing Democrats’. The other one should be called the ‘business as usual Democrats’.

It seems to me that those ads would be devastating in highlighting the Democrats’ lack of will to implement real change. It’s also a great vehicle in highlighting the system of corruption that they have.

Technorati Tags: Earmarks, Corruption, John Murtha, Nancy Pelosi, Quid Pro Quo, Jeff Flake, Reforms, Transparency, NRCC, Election 2008

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

1. [...] Cross-posted at California Conservative Categories: Pelosi, Corruption, John Murtha, Reforms, Liberalism, Special Interests, Election 2008 | [...]

   Pingback by Let Freedom Ring » Blog Archive » This Is What ‘Transparency’ Looks Like? — August 6, 2007 @ 9:45 am

2. [...] Original post by Gary Gross and software by Elliott Back [...]

   Pingback by This Is What ‘Transparency’ Looks Like? at Conservative Times--Republican GOP news source. — August 6, 2007 @ 10:09 am

1. Since when do those yahoos work for us, Gary? It hasn’t happened in at least a century, and it is getting worse by the day (even when “Republicans” ran the legislature).

   The only things our “elected representatives” want is more money and more control over every aspect of our lives (personal and business) because, doggone it, they deserve it! Right?

   Comment by Carlos — August 6, 2007 @ 3:11 pm

2. Well, let’s compare:

   — Republicans in charge: no ethics reform, rampant corruption, republican Congressmen sent to prison, one resignation, ongoing investigations;

   — Democrats in charge: ethics reform started and passed after only 8 months in office (hey, at least its a start, and already way more than the 109th accomplished); one indictment (likely to be thrown out on a technicality, caused by over-zealous republican prosecutor).

   Just the facts.

   Comment by Rocky — August 6, 2007 @ 6:25 pm

3. Ain’t it strange that when it’s a “Republican” prosecutor going after a donkey, he’s “overzealous”, but hell won’t have it if a donkey prosecutor can’t find “the goods” on a Republican? Talk to Libby or Delay about that.

   And as far as your litany of Republican “bads” go, just try to find a prosecutor in D.C. who’ll go after a donkey. They know the vicious power donkeys will have their hides if they do. The donkeys are every bit as corrupt as the elephants. Otherwise, why are such upstanding “citizens” as Murtha and Feinstein still around?

   As proof of that, check out the “reforms” they passed before recessing. All they did was make it more difficult to find who’s on the take! That’s reform any citizen of this country should be screaming for blood about.

   Comment by Carlos — August 6, 2007 @ 7:56 pm

4. Earmarks, remember that?????

   And who the hells chalking them up this year hands down? Your buddy John Murtha.
   Washington aint no different than Sacramento, corruption is in the eye of the party out of power.

   Comment by T. A. Gray — August 7, 2007 @ 8:33 am