Repub Holds Promise for Whopping 72 Hours!!

[run4it]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...112305580.html

Only three days after GOP senators and senators-elect renounced earmarks, Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl, the No. 2 Senate Republican, got himself a whopping $200 million to settle an Arizona Indian tribe's water rights claim against the government

I have no problem with earmarks. In fact, I think they're quite useful, and sometimes even preferable. But 3 days after the GOP declares a ban? And this ain't just a freshman benchwarmer...he's the #2 Senate Repub. But hey, the Repubs are the party of integrity, right?

And before the Repub spinmasters come in, yes this IS an earmark: it's a specific dollar amount, amended to a bill by an individual senator, for a specified cause, for that senator's home district. Can you get a better definition.

And yes, I also know that Democratic senators added earmarks as well. But they weren't the ones railing against earmarks, now were they?

[WNYresident]

Said it was a claim against water rights...

[run4it]

Said it was a claim against water rights...

Yep, it is. But it's still an earmark.

I personally think it's a pretty good earmark. But hey, according to Kyl and his Repub peers, all earmarks are BAD and they should be abolished.

[WNYresident]

Don't twist it to make it sound like "REP's want earmarks"... It's a claim not money being pissed away on a bridge to no where or a pet "project" wasted.

[nogods]

Don't twist it to make it sound like "REP's want earmarks"... It's a claim not money being pissed away on a bridge to no where or a pet "project" wasted.

There's nothing special about a "claim" - Buffalo could "claim" the US discriminated against it in the operation of the FAA and then Schumer could get an earmark to settle the claim.

Trying to excuse the behavior as a "claim" is juvenile.

[Dougles]

There's nothing special about a "claim" - Buffalo could "claim" the US discriminated against it in the operation of the FAA and then Schumer could get an earmark to settle the claim.

Trying to excuse the behavior as a "claim" is juvenile.

So you want to equate a legal claim to building a bridge to the middle of know where? or funding a party for the Italian-American club?

[mikenold]

Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...112305580.html

It wasn't considered an earmark earlier this year!

Kyl slipped the measure into a larger bill sought by President Barack Obama and passed by the Senate on Friday to settle claims by black farmers and American Indians against the federal government.
Kyl's office insists the measure is not an earmark, and the House didn't deem it one when it considered a version earlier this year.

So, he put an earmark in a bigger earmark bill?

The money for the 15,000-member White Mountain Apache Tribe was one of four tribal water rights claims totaling almost $570 million that was added to the $5 billion-plus bill. Black farmers will get about $1.2 billion to settle claims that the Agriculture Department's local offices discriminated against them in awarding loans and other aid. Another $3.4 billion goes to American Indians who say the Interior Department swindled them out of oil, gas and other royalties. The House still has to act on the total package, and likely will after Congress reconvenes Nov. 29 for the continuation of a postelection, lame duck session.

More earmark's from Democrats?

Sens. Max Baucus, D-Mont., and Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., also got in on the bargain, adding measures benefiting their states to the black farmers-tribal royalty settlements. The two senators obtained almost $370 million for projects in their states to implement water settlements.
Baucus and Bingaman make no bones about their support for earmarks, but Kyl is a recent convert to the anti-earmark crusade of home state GOP colleague Sen. John McCain, who's railed against them for years. The Interior Department sought only $56 million for Indian land and water claims in Obama's proposed budget for this year and no money for Kyl's project, or those wanted by Baucus and Bingaman.

Look's like this money will benefit the Indian's and not the State!

The $200 million in Kyl's measure would be used to construct and maintain a drinking water project on the Fort Apache Indian Reservation, including a dam, reservoir, treatment plant and delivery pipelines.

This should be paid with Federal monies as it involves Native American tribes. Besides, it looks as though it will save the government money in the long run!

The water system is settlement compensation for numerous abuses by the federal government, which included clearing trees and other vegetation from thousands of acres of tribal lands in order to increase runoff into the Salt River, a source of water for the cities of Phoenix, Scottsdale, Tempe, Mesa and other communities. The tribe also would waive a half-dozen other claims against the government.

This is an American Indian issue and is not an earmark as it does not benefit his State but instead native Americans on sovereign land!

Earmarking allows lawmakers to steer federal spending to pet projects in their states and districts. Earmarks take many forms, including road projects, improvements to home district military bases, sewer projects, economic development projects.

Glad I could help clear this up.

[nogods]

So you want to equate a legal claim to building a bridge to the middle of know where? or funding a party for the Italian-American club?

And what is a "legal claim"? a claim made by a lawyer? a claim made in a complaint filed with a court? Do you think such claims are different from claims that aren't contained in complaint filed with a court?

If so, then even the bridge to nowhere could have been set forth in a complaint filed in a federal district court for the cost of a few hundred bucks.

If you are going to whore your mind, at least charge a decent rate.

[NBuffaloResident]

Don't twist it to make it sound like "REP's want earmarks"... It's a claim not money being pissed away on a bridge to no where or a pet "project" wasted.

Oh, well, in that case, we just need to look to Republican Extraordinaire: Sarah Palin and her bridge to nowhere. Which costs more than the Golden Gate Bridge (Even accounting for inflation) by about $100 million, and would service 1/100th of the number of people.

[NBuffaloResident]

Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...112305580.html

It wasn't considered an earmark earlier this year!

Kyl slipped the measure into a larger bill sought by President Barack Obama and passed by the Senate on Friday to settle claims by black farmers and American Indians against the federal government.
Kyl's office insists the measure is not an earmark, and the House didn't deem it one when it considered a version earlier this year.

So, he put an earmark in a bigger earmark bill?

The money for the 15,000-member White Mountain Apache Tribe was one of four tribal water rights claims totaling almost $570 million that was added to the $5 billion-plus bill. Black farmers will get about $1.2 billion to settle claims that the Agriculture Department's local offices discriminated against them in awarding loans and other aid. Another $3.4 billion goes to American Indians who say the Interior Department swindled them out of oil, gas and other royalties. The House still has to act on the total package, and likely will after Congress reconvenes Nov. 29 for the continuation of a postelection, lame duck session.

More earmark's from Democrats?

Sens. Max Baucus, D-Mont., and Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., also got in on the bargain, adding measures benefiting their states to the black farmers-tribal royalty settlements. The two senators obtained almost $370 million for projects in their states to implement water settlements.
Baucus and Bingaman make no bones about their support for earmarks, but Kyl is a recent convert to the anti-earmark crusade of home state GOP colleague Sen. John McCain, who's railed against them for years. The Interior Department sought only $56 million for Indian land and water claims in Obama's proposed budget for this year and no money for Kyl's project, or those wanted by Baucus and Bingaman.

Look's like this money will benefit the Indian's and not the State!

The $200 million in Kyl's measure would be used to construct and maintain a drinking water project on the Fort Apache Indian Reservation, including a dam, reservoir, treatment plant and delivery pipelines.

This should be paid with Federal monies as it involves Native American tribes. Besides, it looks as though it will save the government money in the long run!

The water system is settlement compensation for numerous abuses by the federal government, which included clearing trees and other vegetation from thousands of acres of tribal lands in order to increase runoff into the Salt River, a source of water for the cities of Phoenix, Scottsdale, Tempe, Mesa and other communities. The tribe also would waive a half-dozen other claims against the government.

This is an American Indian issue and is not an earmark as it does not benefit his State but instead native Americans on sovereign land!

Earmarking allows lawmakers to steer federal spending to pet projects in their states and districts. Earmarks take many forms, including road projects, improvements to home district military bases, sewer projects, economic development projects.

Glad I could help clear this up.

Last I checked, the democrats were railing against earmarks, and pronouncing a ban on them.

[Dougles]

Oh, well, in that case, we just need to look to Republican Extraordinaire: Sarah Palin and her bridge to nowhere. Which costs more than the Golden Gate Bridge (Even accounting for inflation) by about $100 million, and would service 1/100th of the number of people.

Since when do governors have the right to write federal bills? Come don't be a ****ing hack!

[Dougles]

And what is a "legal claim"? a claim made by a lawyer? a claim made in a complaint filed with a court? Do you think such claims are different from claims that aren't contained in complaint filed with a court?

If so, then even the bridge to nowhere could have been set forth in a complaint filed in a federal district court for the cost of a few hundred bucks.

If you are going to whore your mind, at least charge a decent rate.

Sorry, substitute the word claim for settlement, your a 'lawyer', you should be able to figure out the difference now. I hope.

[mikenold]

Last I checked, the democrats were railing against earmarks, and pronouncing a ban on them.

Why do you continually make things up to try and cover for your progressive friends.

Just the opposite is true! Link:http://minnesota.publicradio.org/dis...1/17/earmarks/

With the incoming House GOP majority dead set against earmarks and President Barack Obama urging a crackdown, defenders of earmarks - mostly Democrats but with a few Republicans mixed in - are swimming against a powerful tide.

Do you ever look to see if the information you make up has even a shred of truth???

[mnb811]

Oh, well, in that case, we just need to look to Republican Extraordinaire: Sarah Palin and her bridge to nowhere. Which costs more than the Golden Gate Bridge (Even accounting for inflation) by about $100 million, and would service 1/100th of the number of people.

Sorry but the Senator Ted Stevens who just bought it in a plane crash recently came up with this bill. Not Palin. Don't be stupid. Furthermore your buddy from South Carolina Democrat Rep. James Clyburn has his own bridge to nowhere connecting 2 towns with a population of 500 people over a man made lake. Seems like people like you give this guy a pass!

[mikenold]

Sorry but the Senator Ted Stevens who just bought it in a plane crash recently came up with this bill. Not Palin. Don't be stupid. Furthermore your buddy from South Carolina Democrat Rep. James Clyburn has his own bridge to nowhere connecting 2 towns with a population of 500 people over a man made lake. Seems like people like you give this guy a pass!

As governor of Alaska Sarah Palin said "Thanks but no thanks" on the bridge to nowhere!