Jay Newton-Small, congressional correspondent for Time Magazine, talks about the ethics committee hearing for Congressman Charles Rangel and other Congressional news.
»» Read more on the Rangel hearing and comment at It's A Free Country
Jennifer here is the fact vs. your fictionhttp://www.taxfoundation.org/UserFiles/Image/Blog/ftsbs-large.jpg
i hope this helps u vote better.
To Jennifer- what the Manhattanite is referring to is the fact that most states in the Northeast (I believe NJ is #1) get less money backfrom the federal government in terms of spending in our state vs how much we pay in taxes. So yes it is re-distribution.
Several misleading facts on this segment:
The Washington Post reporter said that the Bridge to Nowhere, while funded by an earmark, went to an island with 7,000 residents; Brian also repeated this misinformation. The Bridge to Nowhere, or Gravina Island Bridge was slated to go to an island with 50 residents and the Ketchikan airport.
The Washington Post reporter also responding in a misleading manner regarding Harry Reid's ability to bring home earmarks. She stated that he brings home more more than the whole Nevada delegation combined. While this is true, she should point out that Nevada does not have a huge population, so Harry Reid as senior senator, brings home more pork that 3 representatives and 1 junior senator. She reported only "partial facts" which is misleading.
FACTS ARE IMPORTANT, EVEN ON DETAILS! Please be more careful and CALL PEOPLE OUT when they don't tell the truth, tell only partial truth, weather intentional or not.Thank you.
It's an issue because politicians like McCain banged on about this minor non-issue to try and burnish their 'independent' credentials and the lap dog press who at the time trumpeted him as the 'straight-talker' (sic) ran with it as a 'big issue'. Ten years later ill-informed citizens hold onto it as if it's meaningful.
Further Brian why don;t you ever hold up callers or guests on sloppy language and false dichotomies. eg - callers who claim 'the people' think. Please correct them to 'some people' you won't lose listeners in fact you'll gain them with a bit more confrontation. But far worse is how you allow pundits to talk total garbage without correction. Today your guest casually talks of how the deficits won't be reduced by reforming earmarks but only be gutting entitlements (a word the use of which you should examine in a segment please) and you let it pass as if this is accepted wisdom which you know well it's not. I actually use your allowing a general to casually toss off a line about the cold war being bloodless a few years ago as anecdotal evidence of the meekness of the supposedly liberal media. Please Brain I think you have what it takes to do a better job, you're already better than most, though in this day and age that's not saying much. Manipulative language needs to fought every time it's uttered.
Earmarking is not an issue when the Federal government has some disposable income to spare. But when deficits and the national debt has reached such levels, it becomes the disproportionate target of those looking for waste to pare. In reality, they are a drop in the bucket in the bigger picture. The big picture is how to restructure the economy to adapt to current global realities.
The pretentious Manhattanite claiming that earmarks are redistributive is talking nonsense. It's a familiar fiction circulated in this part of the country (northeast corridor) that fails to understand the economies of southern states or, at best, points to the poorest of those states that have benefited from earmarks, while ignoring earmarks going toward wealthier states. Often earmarks that seem to benefit one region,benefit the nation as a whole, whether it's in facilitating trade through a port or exploiting natural resources used by all Americans. For someone living in the center of a crisis that threatened to bring the world's economy down because of the egregious actions of extraordinarily wealthy bankers and hedge fund managers to begrudge federal funds going to "poorer" states, well...look in the mirror, buddy. And I say that as New Yorker.
Haven't we heard from WNYC that earmarks comprise less than 10% of the federal budget? -- whereas big entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security suck up more than 50%. Of course we all dislike government waste, but curbing earmarks isn't going to make a dent in the deficit.
The problem with earmarks is not the money, but the corrupting nature of them. Members of Congress are buying votes.
I'm not a member of the tea-party, but I would like to get rid of the earmarks. I don't eat pork, and it makes my neck cringe every time I must hear it being discussed.
This is all Tea Party bluster. I got a huge kick out watching Tea Party rallies with the signs about ending earmarks right next to the anti-Obamacare signs that said "keep your government hands off my Medicare". These morons don't realize that Medicare is a government program.
Ummm... "porking", as used so frequently in this interview, is also defined as the "act of having vigorous sexual intercourse with someone" - I know it's juvenile, but I've been giggling throughout this show...
I'm so glad that the caller brought up the issue of redistribution to Tea Party states. I would love to see what would happen to Sarah Palin's Alaska if the federal funds dried up.
of course banning earmarks will not fix the deficit, it's pure tea-party anti-govt demagoguery.. what else is new...
Register for your own account so you can vote on comments, save your favorites, and more.
Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm
your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. We reserve the
right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the
Comment Guidelines before
By leaving a comment, you agree to New York Public Radio's
It's your neighborhood, your city, your country, your world, and now your website. Brian Lehrer delves into the issues and links them to real life.