The Christian Science Monitor tells us that the Democrats have been window-dressing on earmarks, while leaving themselves whopping huge loopholes that they can use any time they want to porkbarrel another "Bridge to Nowhere" for Their Own pals (the very procedure that was used to create "The Bridge.." was left in place, and defended by Harry Reid and Diane Feinstein):

[Washington - The drive for more transparency on earmarks, or congressionally directed spending, is sputtering on Capitol Hill.
Two months after passing the most sweeping ethics-reform bill since the Watergate era, lawmakers are giving the new law its first field test as they move to complete authorization and spending bills for the new fiscal year.

Thanks to the new law, there is more information about member earmarks than ever before. For the first time, the public can link the name of a member to a specific project in that member's district – although the process is not as user-friendly as sponsors once suggested.

But key changes promised in debates in the House and Senate aren't yet the practice behind closed doors. Without public pressure, critics say they may never be.

"We have more disclosure about earmarks than we've ever had before, but among the more frustrating things we've seen is a simple word change that really delays disclosure until it's almost meaningless," says Bill Allison, a senior fellow at the Sunlight Foundation, which tracks earmarks.

One of the key venues for abuse, critics say, is "air-dropping" projects in conference. In other words, measures are added after a bill has passed both the House and Senate but before it goes back to both bodies for a final vote. That backroom tactic is what ex-lobbyist Jack Abramoff called "the favor factory." It's where former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R) of California, now serving an eight-year sentence after pleading guilty to corruption charges, linked earmarks to bribes without scrutiny.

Water bill gets $2 billion in earmarks

Even before conferences on the 12 spending bills for fiscal year 2008, where most earmarks are typically added, critics note that the recently passed Water Resources Development Act added some $2 billion in earmarks in conference.

In a clarification of the intent of new reform bill, Senate majority leader Harry Reid told the Senate parliamentarian that the new law only applied to spending bills, not to authorization or tax bills. That means that members had no opportunity to challenge specific projects on the floor of the House or Senate.

"Under the OPEN Government Act that the president signed into law, everyone thought that the ability for senators to raise a point of order against earmarks added in conference applied to all bills – appropriations, authorization, tax bills," says Tom Schatz, president of Citizens Against Government Waste, a budget watchdog group in Washington.

"Now, senators know that they can add projects with impunity to the authorization bill and no one can object. That's business as usual," he adds.

House Republicans and conservative activist groups rallied on Thursday to call for stronger disclosure requirements for earmarks. In June, House Republican leader John Boehner introduced a resolution to require that earmark reforms apply to all bills, including tax and authorization bills, so that they can be amended or challenged on the floor of the House.
...
In a letter to Sens. Reid and Dianne Feinstein (D) of California, Sen. Jim DeMint (R) of South Carolina challenged how Democrats were interpreting the new law in the Senate. "While we have had numerous disagreements about the ethics bill, I believe we share a common desire to restrict the practice of adding earmarks into bills behind closed doors," he said.

In a Sept. 20 letter in response, Sens. Reid and Feinstein wrote that there are "sound policy reasons" for treating authorization and spending bills differently. "Stronger safeguards are appropriate when Congress actually spends taxpayer money," they wrote. "But when Congress passes an authorizing bill, it is simply expressing a goal."

But critics note that the most infamous earmark of all, the $223 million "Bridge to Nowhere" in Alaska, was attached to an authorizing bill, not a spending bill.]

Source: http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1005/p01s01-uspo.html

So, in what way are they "better than the last guy"?

Is it any wonder that many third party supporters tend to refer to the people who have been running our government as DemoPublicans and/or RepubliCrats?

EARMARKS MUST BE ELIMINATED!

The term "Earmark" is most comonly used to refer to a provision (line-item) in legislation that directs funds to be spent on specific projects. Members of Congress insert earmarks into bills in order to direct specified amounts of money be given or spent on particular organizations or projects in their home states or districts. This differs from the appropriation of budget money to a particular government agency where the agency head can exercise discretion as to where and how the funds are spent. If the funds aren’t earmarked by members of congress, the agencies are free to spend money on projects they believe are most appropriate to meet their organizational goals and objectives.

Earmarks can more accurately be described as giving away the taxpayers hard earned money by secretly attaching line-items into non-related congressional bills for specific projects or specific recipients in order to get re-elected.

Many of the beneficiaries of these earmarked funds are state or local public agencies, but just as often, the money goes to private entities where the beneficiaries are political supporters of the legislators pushing the earmarks. Earmarks are the principal means by which Members of Congress “bring home the pork” and publishing their earmarks during an election year is a common tactic used to help incumbent members of congress get reelected.

It is not so much that any single earmark is the problem, but rather it’s the entire process. There is no real transparency or accountability in the current system. Members of congress try to re-direct billions of dollars of funding to specific projects within their district without subjecting these projects to debate by their colleagues, or to scrutiny and oversight by the public. The earmarking process invites backroom deals and sometimes unethical, or even corrupt behavior. It has become part of a “pay-to-play” culture where lobbyists, contractors and well-connected individuals give campaign contributions to legislators in return for receiving federal funding via earmarks for their special projects.

While the vital interests of the nation are being ignored by members of both houses of congress regardless of party affiliation, many legislators concentrate their efforts on diverting appropriated agency money to low-priority and sometimes outrageous special interest projects that will generate local publicity and additional campaign contributions.

While the country suffers from an invasion of illegal aliens and cannot seem to find the funds for increased border security, congress earmarks $3.4 million to research the Formosan Subterranean Termite and $10 million to La Raza, a pro-illegal alien amnesty organization. While the country goes deeper and deeper into debt and the dollar seems to lose its value every day, congress earmarks $450,000 for the International Peace Garden in Dunseith, North Dakota and $13.5 million for the International Fund for Ireland, which includes funding for the World Toilet Summit. While the nation’s education system is failing the American people, congress earmarks $2 million for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at the City College of New York and another $200,000 for the Andre Agassi College Preparatory Academy in Las Vegas, Nev.

The House of Representatives has recently taken an important first step in reducing earmarks by passing House Rules changes requiring that earmarked spending projects and their congressional sponsors be publicized on the internet at least 48 hours before they are considered for a vote on the floor. Under the new rules, Members of Congress will be required to justify the public need for the specific earmarked expenditures and certify that they won't benefit financially from them. This is a good step forward, but more must be done.

The best way to reduce the number of earmarks is to pass legislation that requires that all bills and legislation be single issue or purposed. An individual bill should address one specific issue and only that issue. Any amendments must directly address that specific issue. No pork, no side issues, and especially no riders. All bills must be published and the discussions open to public scrutiny.

Limiting legislation to a single purpose will make bills more concise, and will substantially reduce the number of expensive special interest giveaways that are routinely inserted into so called "must pass" legislation without any debate. If members of congress want to fund specific projects back in their home states, let them introduce bills for these projects and let these bills be openly debated and voted on.

By:
JOHN W. WALLACE
Candidate for Congress
New York’s 20th Congressional District
www.FreedomCandidate.com

Best of Luck, John!

It would be a real pleasure to see Congress spend more time examining their role under the Constitution, and less time dividing up the Pork Pie.

The proposed "One Subject At A Time Act", the "Read The Bills Act", and the "Write The Bills Act" are all efforts I actively support, so once again, Best Of Luck!

thank you