Burr: $320 million for private companies, nothing for unemployed
Submitted by scharrison on Tue, 04/13/2010 - 11:59am
For someone who says we need to cut spending, he sure throws those earmarks around:
Deirdre Murphy, spokeswoman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, also fired a volley at Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) for “hypocritically request[ing] millions of dollars in pork spending while delivering empty rhetoric on restricting spending.”
Burr, who is facing a tough reelection, requested $320 million worth of earmarks. His requests include $8.7 million to Defense Technologies Inc. for an intelligence-gathering system and $6.5 million to Hexatech Inc. for next-generation wireless and optical communications systems to equip the military.
Don't they employ people?
You've really confused me. Don't these requests for funding of procurement plans mean that these companies will be employing people? So, you'd rather give money directly to people that don't have jobs rather than create an environment that helps them attain jobs. You're gonna have to explain that one to me.
"A point in every direction is the same as no point at all" - Pointless Man
Tie the contracts to measurable hiring targets
and you'd have a point, sort of.
Richard Burr has made a career out of hypocrisy. The idea that he's in favor of earmark spending (self-serving politically) is kinda hard to square with his NO YOU CAN'T rhetoric.
Do good. Be nice. Have fun.
Sort of, of course you factor in the circular door
of Republican coffers being refilled by military contractors who take the Federal money with one hand and hand a chunk back to R's with the other. And so goes the endless loop.
Progressives are the true conservatives.
You're missing the point
Burr has claimed that nobody can get to the Right of him, he's stumping on a (supposed) platform of fiscal responsibility, yet he went against his own Republican leadership that wanted to ban earmarks.
And yes, earmarks do inject funds into the workforce, but they're also basically no-bid contracts. Which makes him a foe of the free market, as well.
Woa there pardner
loftT, does the name Jack Murtha mean anything to you? I'm pretty sure that you'd find that defense contractors have given more to Democrats in the past 4 years than Repbulicans but this is not a D or R issue. As for earmarks, I don't know how to solve that one. Stop all of them and then some government employee makes these decisions while being pressured by elected officials and taking bribes under the table.
"A point in every direction is the same as no point at all" - Pointless Man
Earmarks
You're pretty dead on with regard to Murtha, of course. But, "earmarks" have been around ever since...well, forever, if you care to check it. And, some of them are good for the states and some of them are just "pork" for re-election purposes...not many can actually argue that.
I am like you in that I do not want some Washington DC legislative employee determining what moneys go to what project or endeavor vs. having a congressperson or senator doing that. It's a good point. The money sent to Washington that will be returned to the states needs to go to specific projects...that's how it works...that's what it's all about. How to determine what amount goes where for what state..well, that's currently, in large part, "pork" and "earmarks"...not all of it, of course. It is a difficult thing to change, if that's what we really want to do.