PDA

View Full Version : Response From Dianne Feinstein




Fields
03-28-2008, 02:41 PM
What are your thoughts?



Dear Mr. Fields:

Thank you for writing to me about congressional earmarks. I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the opportunity to respond.


Under Article I of the Constitution, Congress is given the responsibility for the appropriation of Federal spending. Last year, Congress instituted a number of reforms in the appropriations process, including a significant reduction in the number of earmarks. As Chairman of the Senate Rules Committee and a member of the Appropriations Committee, I am pleased that these new rules have added greater transparency to the legislative process. These reforms require that all earmarks be disclosed, along with the name of the Member of Congress who sponsored them, and that the information be posted publicly on the Internet for at least 48 hours before consideration on the Senate floor.


However, earmarks play an important role in ensuring that critical local projects and innovative demonstration programs receive the funding they merit. Mayors and County Supervisors come to me to ask for assistance in securing federal funding for law enforcement equipment, highways, mass transit projects, flood protection and other infrastructure improvements, many of which are not priorities of the President. California is also a donor state, sending more money to the Federal Treasury than it receives back in payments and services. One of the steps that I and other Members of Congress from California can take to decrease this gap is earmark funding.


I was elected to the Senate by the people of California to represent their best interests. It is also my duty to see that the dollars Californians pay in taxes are used responsibly and on projects and programs from which they benefit. I believe that the earmarking process, with these new reforms and transparency, continues to serve these purposes.


Again, thank you for writing. Please know that I will keep your thoughts in mind as I continue to see that federal funding is spent wisely and properly. If you have any further questions or comments, please contact my office in Washington, D.C. at (202) 224-3841. Best regards.

Sincerely yours,
Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator

BenjFranklin
03-28-2008, 06:57 PM
Congress is only authorized to spend money for enumerated ends, i.e. Article 1, Section 8.

They seem to have forgotten that a long time ago.

The whole issue of earmarks is very much overblown. While I would love to see them go away, we are talking about under 2% of our federal budget. It's called smoke and mirrors. If we're talking about earmarks, we're not talking about the 2/3 of our budget consisting of entitlements. I can only hope enough of us wake up before it's to late.

Rhys
03-28-2008, 07:28 PM
What are your thoughts?



Dear Mr. Fields:

Thank you for writing to me about congressional earmarks. I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the opportunity to respond.


Under Article I of the Constitution, Congress is given the responsibility for the appropriation of Federal spending. Last year, Congress instituted a number of reforms in the appropriations process, including a significant reduction in the number of earmarks. As Chairman of the Senate Rules Committee and a member of the Appropriations Committee, I am pleased that these new rules have added greater transparency to the legislative process. These reforms require that all earmarks be disclosed, along with the name of the Member of Congress who sponsored them, and that the information be posted publicly on the Internet for at least 48 hours before consideration on the Senate floor.


However, earmarks play an important role in ensuring that critical local projects and innovative demonstration programs receive the funding they merit. Mayors and County Supervisors come to me to ask for assistance in securing federal funding for law enforcement equipment, highways, mass transit projects, flood protection and other infrastructure improvements, many of which are not priorities of the President. California is also a donor state, sending more money to the Federal Treasury than it receives back in payments and services. One of the steps that I and other Members of Congress from California can take to decrease this gap is earmark funding.


I was elected to the Senate by the people of California to represent their best interests. It is also my duty to see that the dollars Californians pay in taxes are used responsibly and on projects and programs from which they benefit. I believe that the earmarking process, with these new reforms and transparency, continues to serve these purposes.


Again, thank you for writing. Please know that I will keep your thoughts in mind as I continue to see that federal funding is spent wisely and properly. If you have any further questions or comments, please contact my office in Washington, D.C. at (202) 224-3841. Best regards.

Sincerely yours,
Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator

Ron Paul's gotten more earmarks for the 14th Texas district than she could deam of.

Mr. White
03-28-2008, 08:04 PM
Congress is only authorized to spend money for enumerated ends, i.e. Article 1, Section 8.

They seem to have forgotten that a long time ago.

The whole issue of earmarks is very much overblown. While I would love to see them go away, we are talking about under 2% of our federal budget. It's called smoke and mirrors. If we're talking about earmarks, we're not talking about the 2/3 of our budget consisting of entitlements. I can only hope enough of us wake up before it's to late.

and here I thought the enumerated end was "to promote the general welfare."

Soccrmastr
03-28-2008, 08:35 PM
RP gets earmarks for his district all the time

libertythor
03-28-2008, 08:43 PM
Earmarks just decide where the money goes. Ron votes against the appropriations but takes the prerogative of at least having a say in where some of the money goes in the event it passes. That is a function of congress.

Ending earmarks would basically put most of the planning process in the hands of the executive branch for works projects (which should be done on the state level for the most part anyways), this is a problem that Mexico has that the US doesn't need to have. (Yes the executive branch down here has a stronger say.)

Anybody up for "4 year plans"? Mexican Presidents always create their "6 year plans" and try to use their party aparatus to strong arm congress. Do we want to take after a Soviet concept as well? (5 year plans)

The focus should be on cutting overall spending and eliminating unconstitutional functions. Eliminating earmarks won't do either....it will only give the President and his or her advisors more opportunity to determine how the money is spent.

Remember McCain's campaign finance reform that restricted private donations and further restricted independent expenditures? That gave the federal government more power over the electoral process.

Don't let McCain trick people into accepting his latest trick!

MGreen
03-28-2008, 08:59 PM
Earmarks can be horribly abused, but as RP and others have said, I'd rather have Congress doing its job and delegating how funds are to be spent, as opposed to the bureaucracy. I also think it's fair for businesses/communities to get back the money they sent to DC.

Of course, most in Washington don't even consider cutting taxes, allowing communities to keep the money in the first place, and then removing the earmarked spending. But I guess they know best where money should go.