THIS is why I hate govt officials

[Lason]

I was just watching Fox news and they were talking to our very own, Sen John Cornyn and he was talking about how bad this recent spending bill is because it will cost so much. The fox anchor then asked if it was true Cornyn had 16 mill worth of earmarks in the bill and he said yes but he still plans on voting against it. Then went on to say he voted to ban earmarks, yet still has $16mill worth in this bill??!!

I understand having to play the system your dealt but those fuckers in washington love to talk out of both sides of their mouth, depending on who is listening.

[OldGuysRule]

Because... if it does pass like he expects it will and he doesn't have the earmarks people will be pissed at him because so-and-so state got this and Texas got nothing.

He also gets to say he voted no on the omnibus and for allowing earmarks.

Nice play.

[Vertnut]

I was just watching Fox news and they were talking to our very own, Sen John Cornyn and he was talking about how bad this recent spending bill is because it will cost so much. The fox anchor then asked if it was true Cornyn had 16 mill worth of earmarks in the bill and he said yes but he still plans on voting against it. Then went on to say he voted to ban earmarks, yet still has $16mill worth in this bill??!!

I understand having to play the system your dealt but those fuckers in washington love to talk out of both sides of their mouth, depending on who is listening.

Though it's still bad, $16 mil ain't shit. As far as I'm concerned a $16 earmark is still an earmark...

[Lason]

I understand why he did it, but when will anyone lead by example?? Thats right, never! I for one would rather vote in someone who sticks to their guns and doesnt get that highway development done than someone who says one thing and does another.

NOT a nice a play.

[Lason]

Though it's still bad, $16 mil ain't shit. As far as I'm concerned a $16 earmark is still an earmark...

not the point at all

[Vertnut]

not the point at all

That's my point. clarify...

[Lason]

That's my point. clarify...

I just mean the dollar amount isn't the point. The point is the guy says one thing and does another.

[OldGuysRule]

I understand why he did it, but when will anyone lead by example?? Thats right, never! I for one would rather vote in someone who sticks to their guns and doesnt get that highway development done than someone who says one thing and does another.

NOT a nice a play.

Because he is a politician.

For a politician it is a very nice play even if very elementary.

[Sgt Beavis]

The more I read about earmarks, the more I think, "who gives a shit". They serve a purpose in letting members of Congress get highly directed funding of what many times are important projects. The bullshit ones we hear about in the news are actually few and far between.

I remember Bobby Jindal making fun of an earmark that funded research for predicting the eruption of volcanoes. Sounds kinda wasteful until you realize that it was for Alaska and that Alaska has several active volcanoes. That's just an example I pulled off the top of my head. (keep in mind that I actually like Gov Jindal).

IMO, the hubbub on earmarks is nothing more than another effort to distract the populous from real issues. Why focus on something that makes up a VERY small percentage of the budget when we could focus on major expenditures like the F-22. I love this fighter but the fact is that it will cost OVER $1TRILLION over its life span. We can't afford it. Again, this is just one example that I pulled off the top of my head. Everyone here knows of multiple examples with entitlements, defense, transportation, etc, etc, etc..

[Lason]

16 mill by itself sounds like a small figure till you figure this is just one senator's earmarks. Multiply that by all the senators and then multiply that by the amount of bills passed all year and it adds up quick! But like I said, the monetary amount is not what Im reffering to.

[Slowhand]

The more I read about earmarks, the more I think, "who gives a shit". They serve a purpose in letting members of Congress get highly directed funding of what many times are important projects. The bullshit ones we hear about in the news are actually few and far between.

I remember Bobby Jindal making fun of an earmark that funded research for predicting the eruption of volcanoes. Sounds kinda wasteful until you realize that it was for Alaska and that Alaska has several active volcanoes. That's just an example I pulled off the top of my head. (keep in mind that I actually like Gov Jindal).

IMO, the hubbub on earmarks is nothing more than another effort to distract the populous from real issues. Why focus on something that makes up a VERY small percentage of the budget when we could focus on major expenditures like the F-22. I love this fighter but the fact is that it will cost OVER $1TRILLION over its life span. We can't afford it. Again, this is just one example that I pulled off the top of my head. Everyone here knows of multiple examples with entitlements, defense, transportation, etc, etc, etc..

I completely disagree. The whole purpose for the existence of the federal government is to do what the states cannot do for themselves, and that is all. Earmarks are just a method for ballooning state governments that don't have the budget to keep expanding their power and programs to continue to expand those programs and thus their power.

[OldGuysRule]

16 mill by itself sounds like a small figure till you figure this is just one senator's earmarks. Multiply that by all the senators and then multiply that by the amount of bills passed all year and it adds up quick! But like I said, the monetary amount is not what Im reffering to.

You seem to have a problem with scaling numbers and taking time to concentrate on what is really wrong.

Hopefully this video will help.

http://www.wimp.com/budgetcuts/

[Denny]

Because... if it does pass like he expects it will and he doesn't have the earmarks people will be pissed at him because so-and-so state got this and Texas got nothing.

He also gets to say he voted no on the omnibus and for allowing earmarks.

Nice play.

And that is actually sound logic in today's politics.

[Lason]

You seem to have a problem with scaling numbers and taking time to concentrate on what is really wrong.

Hopefully this video will help.

http://www.wimp.com/budgetcuts/

No offense, I realize you are far smarter than I am when it comes to economic jazz but all Im saying is Im tired of liars in washington!

**EDIT** I have to add, you understand that the dollar amount of his earmarks is not what Im upset about right? You and most of the people in this thread are soley focused on dollar amounts. Its simply the fact that he says one thing and does another. He is dishonest to his constituents.

[OldGuysRule]

No offense, I realize you are far smarter than I am when it comes to economic jazz but all Im saying is Im tired of liars in washington!

Just to piss you off a little more... $16 million isn't what Cornyn requested in earmarks... he requested $170 million in 54 earmarks. Hell Ron Paul, Mr. I Don't Vote Yes For Appropriations, has $358 million in earmarks!

Texas has over $6 billion in 1084 earmarks in the 2011 budget or about $250 per capita.

Here is the breakdown (millions/# earmarks)

Senate:
Hutchinson - $770 / 119
Cornyn - $170 / 54

House:
Cuellar - $783 / 94
Lee - $752 /69
Ortiz - $615 / 99
Green - $615 / 70
Green - $541 / 73
Rodriguez - $412 / 88
Gonzalez - $373 / 67
Paul - $358 / 51
Johnson - $287 / 69
Edwards - $212 / 119
Hinojosa - $171 / 46
Ryes - $159 / 48
Dogget - $20 / 18