Slashing earmarks could hurt innocents

WASHINGTON - When Democrats announced a moratorium on all so-called earmarks to clean up corruption heading into the 110th Congress, they might not have realized they would be withholding funds from a popular and worthy nonprofit organization like Southern Nevada's Opportunity Village.

The organization, which provides job training and placement for developmentally disabled youths and adults, was counting on $500,000 tucked inside the massive Transportation, Housing and Urban Development bill pending before Congress to help fund its new campus in southwest Las Vegas.

But that allocation and more than 10,000 other pet projects of members of Congress will be on hold as Democrats fulfill a campaign promise to curtail earmarks, special funding slipped at the last minute into bills for projects in lawmakers' states or home districts, often without the sponsor's name attached.

The incoming chairmen of the House and Senate Appropriations committees jointly announced last week that no earmarks would be allowed for fiscal 2007 as new "transparency and accountability" rules are established for 2008.

Ed Guthrie, executive director of Opportunity Village, is disappointed that his earmark is being stalled, but said if it "gets stopped this year, we'll try again."

Guthrie is all for earmark reform to clean up Washington, but argues that programs like his are not the problem.

more...

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/sun/2006/dec/18/566631869.html

Just MHO

NGU.

I think that many trough-feeders across Nevada (Republicans included) are very upset about Reid/Dems pronouncement that it's time for earmarks to go.

That's worth voting for no matter where it is located.

actively discuss projects they want to spend my money on?

What a Concept!

I support halting earmarks that have no sponsor and no review. Justifiable allocations, as this seems, surely could be at least read on the floor when the larger bill gets discussed. "Silent" earmarks are a problem.

That's why they generally haven't supported ending earmarks altogether, rather they support a method to make the earmarks transparent instead of inserted in the middle of the night.

I tried to tell people that sometimes earmarks are used to ensure specific programs got funding, but noooo, Murtha was just a corrupt bastard for not wanting to ban earmarks completely. :eyes:

But it's totally cancer right now, and we've got to take drastic measures to cut it out.

Are they sufficiently knowledgable and courageous to salvage the good programs after killing off the bad ones? I'm not so sure.

Please.

This is a new one isn't it?

The mean old Democrats are going to come in and slash budgets for popular programs!

The irony here kills me.

It's going to be "Pelosi the Milk Snatcher."

The ability of these people to do a complete 180 on things like cost-cutting without a shred of embarrassment is nothing short of amazing.

They're famous for these. Wonder how many more Dems will run into? Its very risky for us, since many of our beltway leaders aren't exactly savvy enough to keep from getting pounded on these cuts.

Oh well, we go to war with the Dems we have, not the Dems we want.

The most innovative translational cancer research program in the US is housed at the DoD CDMRP (their grant program helped discover the Her2neu breast cancer oncogene). It has also been spun off as an "earmark". If cut, we could lose close to $1 billion in funding for basic cancer research.

eventually the decision will be made that cleaning up corruption and waste is not worth the money. Well, I'm willing to take a few risks to keep millions out of Ted Stevens' hands.