BRIAN ROSS REPORTS
- Like Jay-Z + the Beatles, But Worse
- Update: Help for Homeless Children
- Bush Era, Revised -- and with More Barbeque
- The Tax Woman Cometh
- Paging Mr. Stanford: Antigua Called
- Who Are You Calling Partisan?
- Update: IRS Won't Use Private Debt Collectors
- But Is It Art?
- PMA Scandal a Sore Point for Dems in 2010?
- Down in Flames
- A New Mystery for RNC Chief
- PMA Clients Were Big Givers
- Raided Lobby Firm Still a Force on Capitol Hill
- Stanford Update: Another $143 Mil Found
- Cheney, Hooked on Controversy
TOP BLOTTER CATEGORIES
- Abramoff Lobbying Scandal
- American Al Qaeda
- Avian Flu
- Beirut Hospital Out of Gas
- Cheney
- CIA
- CIA Secret Prisons
- D.C. Madam Affair
- FBI
- Federal Air Marshal Service
- Homeland Security
- Hurricane Katrina
- IRS
- Mark Foley Internet Scandal
- Millionaire Sex Scandal
- Nigerian E-mail Scams
- Norman Hsu, Clinton Fundraiser
- NSA: Wiretapping
- Osama bin Laden
- Payola
- Pharmacy Investigation
- PMA
- Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert
- Stanford
- Steele
- Terror
- Troopergate
- U.K. Airline Terror Plot
- U.K. Bombing Attempts
- Wen Ho Lee
- William Jefferson
- Zarqawi
« Previous | Main | Next »
White House 'Duplicity' Over Pork Spending Draws GOP Ire
Email
Print
ShareJune 28, 2007 12:41 PM
Move over, bacon.
Just a few months after blasting the congressional practice of diverting millions in taxpayer dollars to pet projects, President Bush has slipped into current legislation more than 100 so-called "earmarks" worth over $1 billion -- including nearly $6 million for work on the White House.
The provisions appear to draw a stark contrast with the president's harsh words for earmarks and their proponents in his State of the Union speech in January.
"These special interest items are often slipped into bills at the last hour -- when not even C-SPAN is watching," Bush said. The president proclaimed that "the time has come to end this practice," and urged Congress to cut the number and cost of earmarks "at least in half" this year.
The president's earmarks, for projects including national park improvements, land purchases and new government facilities, have drawn unusual on-the-record criticism from Republican lawmakers, who typically eschew public displays of disaffection with the White House.
"It would appear the administration likes earmarks from their perspective," Rep. Robert Aderholt, R-Ala., told the Hill newspaper, which first reported the White House earmarks. Aderholt is a member of the House Appropriations Committee. He termed the White House stance as "inconsistent," though another Republican, Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho, told the paper it was "duplicity."
The White House disagrees.
"There's a striking difference here" between White House earmarks and congressional earmarks, said administration spokesman Sean Kevelighan. The White House chooses earmarks "[in] a way that is competitive or merit-based," while Congress tends to choose earmarks "based on geography, seniority and special interests," he said.
Do you have a tip for Brian Ross and the Investigative Team?
June 28, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (29)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Throw all the bums out. Both parties. And elect an average Joe who's run an average business and has proven fiscal responsibility. If we keep voting in arrogant wealthy Ivy Leaguers as Presidents nothing will change.
Posted by: Sally | Jul 2, 2007 12:50:24 AM
What else is new no way out.
Posted by: ant | Jul 3, 2007 10:35:38 AM
okaay, let's start from where this mess began. can anyone say Iraq. this so-called president and his merry band of thieves enriched their friends and oil corporations at the expense of the american tax payer.
Posted by: dollyparton | Jul 5, 2007 4:22:57 PM
Hypocracy coming from a man who uses Jesus Christ as a political marketing tool? Unbelievable!!! And another thing while we're on the W. subject...he's the pro-life president. No abortion, no stem cell research, just killing our soldiers and AVERAGE Iraqi citizens (which includes pregnant women) in exchange for huge oil and defense industry profits. Oh yeh, but he's a follower of Jesus.
Posted by: Beth | Jul 6, 2007 4:37:53 PM
Beth,
How can you criticize the man who is your leader? During time of war too?
We are at war. In such times, ANYTHING is allowable if it helps us win - killing Iraqis (for God's sake, they're not Americans, so get over it), spending the lives of our soldiers (duh, that's what soldiers do!), even "using Jesus Christ as a marketing tool" as you so cynically say.
This is the greatest country on earth, the land that defines liberty and freedom. How you can let a few dollars here or there dupe you into blaspheming against America and its leader is beyond me.
Posted by: Deirdre | Jul 9, 2007 5:39:28 PM
The Republicans finally figured out what the Democrats have known at least since the early 20th Century: you can buy votes by taking one person's money and giving it to another. Staying in power is paramount. It's even more important than national security.
Sadly, those of us who really want a small federal government limited to its ligitimate constitutional duties have nowhere to turn.
Posted by: Nat-X | Jul 11, 2007 8:56:24 AM
White House earmarks are "competitive"...riiiiight.
* $24 million on the Laura Bush 21st Century Librarian Program
* $8.9 million on the (George HW Bush) Points of Light foundation
* $1 billion on the Reading First program (which has been accused in a government report of steering contracts illegally to campaign contributors)
Posted by: Felix Polanski | Nov 19, 2007 12:40:12 PM
". . .administration spokesman Sean Kevelighan. The White House chooses earmarks "[in] a way that is competitive or merit-based,"
Is that right. You mean like the no bid contracts for Halliburton in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Blackwater all over the world? What merit did they have that they didn't even have to enter an open bidding contest? What MERIT?
Posted by: Yellowbird | Aug 24, 2008 9:50:14 AM
I can't help notice that just about every pork project passed remains unfunded these days, or am I the only one noticing how broke the states are?
Why is it STILL considered acceptable to slam every bill a Democratic Congress proposes, calling it Pork, but say absolutely NOTHING when a Republican Congress passes bills overnight without reading the content and without the consent of the governed and without financial oversight and the news says nothing?
Our country is in the worst shape of our history and it is DIRECTLY DUE TO THE LOUSY NEWS we have. People have not only been UNINFORMED...
They have been MISINFORMED.
I don't want the fairness doctrine at all.
I want laws against PROPAGANDA. And I want them upheld.
A simple reading of the comments above will show you how nuts the people have gone with anger. It's the fault of the media. Directly.
:(
Posted by: Yellowbird | Jul 26, 2009 5:50:04 PM
Post a comment
