PORKBUSTERS UPDATE: Reader Gerald Hogan emails:
Porkbusters having an effect?
I forwarded the list of the senators who had voted three times against pork to my senators, Chambliss and Isaakson, and asked why their names weren’t on the list. Just now I received a call from Rich in Senator Chambliss’ office. Rich said the senator wanted me to know that he voted against the budget bill this morning. I’m registered as a Republican but have never been active in politics since my days in the Jaycees many years ago. The only thing I get from this is that the GOP is finally understanding that voters are upset. Go Porkbusters!
If you hear anything from your Senators or Representatives, let me know. Please put “porkbusters” in the subject line to help make sure I don’t miss it.
UPDATE: Stephen Lalley has heard from Sen. Patty Murray. Click “read more” for the results.
Murray writes:
—
Dear Mr. Lalley:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the Congresional designation of funds for specific projects, commonly known as earmarking. I appreciate the benefit of your thoughts on this issue.
The process of earmarking is an important outlet for the Legislative Branch to exercise discretion over federal spending in several different types of legislation, including appropriations bills. Rather than leave all funding decisions to the Executive Branch, earmarking allows a legislator to evaluate projects within his or her state or district and determine which projects best fit the state or district’s needs and are most in need of Federal assistance. In this regard, earmarking is an important safeguard of the balance of powers between the Executive and Legislative Branches.
Recently, concerns have been raised about wasteful spending, inefficiency, and corruption associated with earmarking. In response to these concerns, several pieces of legislation aim to reform the regulations that govern the earmarking process. Both S. 2349, the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2006, and S. 2261, the Transparency and Integrity in Earmarks Act of 2006, would mandate that descriptions of and justifications for all earmarks attached to certain types of legislation be available on the internet for a predetermined period of time prior to their consideration by the Senate. In addition, both S. 2261 and S. 2265, the Pork-Barrel Reduction Act, would require that all earmarks be part of either the Senate or House version of a bill, rather than allowing their addition during the conference process. This would provide greater transparency by stipulating that at least one full chamber of Congress evaluate and vote on bills that include earmarks, rather than leaving these decisions entirely up to appointed conferees. I will keep your views in mind as I consider these pieces of legislation.
I believe that it is important to reevaluate our rules in the interest of fiscal responsibility, efficiency, and transparency in the budget progress. I do not, however, believe that their remedies should come at the expense of the crucial balance of power between our government branches.
Again, I appreciate your thoughts on this important matter, and I encourage you to contact me again in the future.
Sincerely,
Patty Murray
United States Senator
P.S. I’d like to invite you to receive Patty Murray’s Washington View, my weekly legislative update by e-mail. If you are interested in receiving my update, please sign up here:
http://murray.senate.gov/updates.
—
I’m not entirely convinced of her sincerity, but at least she’s hearing from constituents.