Has anyone seen a headline reporting that Democrats have cut in half the amount of spending designated for specific projects desired by individual lawmakers?
Probably not, but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened.
The New York Times on Sunday (August 5, 2007) featured a lengthy piece on earmarks, which had skyrocketed under Republican control of Congress when lawmakers were allowed to request money for projects anonymously.
The Times article noted that rules under the new Democratic majority now require lawmakers to have their names attached to earmarks, and it insinuated that has made earmarks more popular. The lead paragraph, for example, reads, "If the idea was to shame lawmakers into restraint, it did not work."
Far down in the story, in the 7th paragraph, the newspaper notes, "To be sure, the Democratic totals are less than half the record set by Republicans when they controlled Congress in 2005, but they are far higher than the levels just 10 years ago."
A 50 percent reduction, yet the newspaper claims there has been no restraint?
Perhaps not wishing to be outdone by The Times, the Livingston Press & Argus reports that Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Brighton, is fighting valiantly to kill other people's earmarks.
In an article in the edition for Tuesday (August 7, 2007), the newspaper claims that earmarks "have soared in number — and controversy — in recent years."
Did the Press & Argus merely take that from an AP story? Perhaps, but it nevertheless is misleading. Earmarks soared under Republicans -- and were slashed in half under Democrats this year.
No comments:
Post a Comment