Now That's Chutzpah
Submitted by crowbar317 on Thu, 12/20/2007 - 10:10pm
First and foremost, this year's earmarks are still in.
Next, and most, well, odd, is Foxx's reasoning. She is not swearing off earmarks because they are undemocratic, ineffective, or ideologically repulsive to her. No, she's doing so because she doesn't want to look bad.
“The term earmark has taken on such a bad connotation that I will not be doing earmarks in the future,” Foxx said.
Though Foxx said she will swear off earmarks next year, ideology didn’t drive her decision. Rather, she suggested, she was worried about negative publicity.
“The press has made earmarks seem like an evil thing. They’re not evil,” she said. “Because it’s become such a negative issue in the minds of the people, I will not go that route in the future.”
So Foxx is basically saying that earmarks are a useful legislative tool that aids her constituents, but screw them because she doesn't want to look bad?
I mean, of all the ways to spin the decision, Foxx chose the absolute worst angle possible- the "screw you it's all about me" angle (aka the Bush Doctrine).
Aside from my disagreements with Foxx on the issues, what has disturbed me lately is the sheer chutzpah.
From Social Security to S-Chip to the war, Foxx votes the way she wants to vote everyone else be damned. AND SHE SAYS THIS RIGHT UP FRONT!!, yet continues to get re-elected.
It just baffles the mind.
Let's hope Roy Carter calls her on this bullshit.
Speaking of Foxx
looks like she has the hots for Mister Mitt.
Ewwwww. That is just plain creepy on so many levels.
Do good. Be nice. Have fun.
media has made earmarks a bad word?
Sorry foxx, but you politicians have made the word earmarks a bad word. Your cowardly attempts to hide your buddy buddy legislation by earmarking legislation that the people want and need with so much crap is what has made earmarks a bad word.
Earmarks, pork barrel, etc. its all the same. lazy and cowardly politicians who cannot or will not take the issue on and fix the problem.
so foxx and the rest of the politicians, what are you going to rename earmarks? What is the new buzz word for this practice? The senate calls them amendments, what is the house going to call it?
Both sides of the house will add so many earmarks and amendments to bills that the other side just cannot expect to have the bill signed if they do not like the intent of the bill. Or they will earmark crap onto bills that have to be passed just so they do not have to deal with the issue.
Foxx, do you see why people despise politicians? As a body, your crooks and a group that is useless as a tit on a bore hog.....however, the country needs to fill that seat, the process for getting you crooks up there puts you into this mode.
So call it what you want. But your still going to engage in the act of earmarking and pork barrel spending. You and the congress will still be making roads to no where, bridges that are not needed, building aircraft engines that will never be used just to help your constituents.
All politicians have made it seem like an evil thing, the press has been doing their job by making you feel uncomfortable in doing that action. So who is evil?
Foxx, how about fixing the earmark issue. How about introducing a bill that states an earmark must be closely associated with the main bill you wish to earmark to...
An example, if the bill is for defense, then no earmarks for agricultural issues is allowed, that would need to be attached to an agricultural bill.
Create a process where bills are categorized. Earmarks must fit into that catagory, or it is not added. That gives everyone the chance to see who is doing the "evil" earmarks for their constituents vice doing the work the country needs.