"Uneven response on House earmarks; Delegation varies in visibility of data" by Matt Viser, Globe Staff | July 12, 2010
WASHINGTON — Despite a new requirement for disclosure, some members of the Massachusetts congressional delegation have tucked lists of requests for special appropriations, known as earmarks, in obscure corners of their official websites, making the proposals more difficult for the public to find.
While several members of the Bay State delegation do provide clear links on their websites of the earmarks they file — some even marked in red letters — four other members place them where they are less obvious. Those sites appear to follow the letter, but not always the spirit, of the new rule.
Voters seeking to view the earmark funding requested by Representative Niki Tsongas would be hard-pressed to find it, unless they stumbled across a press release from March 2010, listed amid routine statements on pending legislation and notices of Congress on Your Corner events.
Related: Tsongas Saves IRS Jobs
Legislative Looters in Your Ear
Now out of range.
Tsongas, who defined herself recently as “an advocate of openness and transparency’’ in publicly disclosing all of her funding requests, said in a statement to the Globe that she remains so, and noted that she began releasing lists of her earmarks before House leaders required it. Tsongas aides said she has sent out press releases when she files her earmark requests.
And no, she can not smell her own stink, if you get my whiff, I mean, drift.
Along with Tsongas, Edward J. Markey of Malden, William Delahunt of Quincy, and John Olver of Amherst have had their earmarks listed in obscure places.
Oh, no, my retiring stinker -- even though I didn't vote for him last time.
This year?
Third-party first, all incumbents out wherever they are found (except those brave enough to oppose the Zionist vise-grip in Washington).
Late last week, after the inquiries from the Globe, Olver updated his site to include a more prominent mention of his requests.
Aides to the congressional members said they are not deliberately hiding their earmark requests, and would attempt to make them more prominent on their sites.
Why can't they tell the truth just once?
The disclosure requirement, which began last year, was designed to restore credibility to a system that has spurred House investigations into links between earmarks, which are provisions added to a bill that direct money to a specific project, and lobbyists who contribute to campaigns.
Yeah, they DO HEAR THEM RATHER WELL!!
At issue is whether some lawmakers have sought funding for special interests that, in return, contribute to the lawmaker’s reelection campaign. Such a quid pro quo is illegal....
And they called it POLITICS!!
“They’re being too cute and too clever by half,’’ said Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a government watchdog group that tracks earmarks. “There’s a certain level of cynicism when you’re hiding this information on your website. You’re only displaying it because you have to, and you’re not displaying it very well.’’
This year, the 10-member House delegation has submitted 576 earmarks worth $1.4 billion.
I would SEND IT ALL BACK if I could, fellow citizens.
In the coming months, some of the requests will be inserted in spending bills and voted on, and the money will start flowing. Successful earmarks will be touted prominently in press releases and ribbon-cuttings....
"I'm proud I wasted your money, taxpayers" -- U.S. lootislator
