Click happy! LOL

What is the difference between earmarks and pork and who controls the addition of these to otherwise sound legislation?
There is no one better to handle this than Peter Overby, NPR's money, power and influence correspondent. I pitched it to him, and he hit it out of the park:

This goes straight to the imprecision of political jargon. Earmarks and pork are overlapping but not synonymous terms. Roughly speaking, pork is about content (by definition wasteful, and usually in someone else's district), while earmarks are about process (nefarious, at least in current usage).

Pork is short for pork barrel. Wordsmith William Safire said it began before the Civil War, likening lawmakers plundering budget funds with slaves rushing a barrel of salt pork put out by the master. Just lovely. Earmark is less loaded. Loosely, it's a provision that's added to a tax or spending bill by one or a few lawmakers. But one champion of earmark reform, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), has defined it more narrowly, as a provision snuck into the bill without a committee hearing or other public discussion. Exhibit A here might be the earmark for a road project in Florida, which Rep. Don Young of Alaska added to a bill after passage.

As for controlling earmarks and pork in legislation: This is the lookout of committee chairs, subcommittee chairs and congressional leaders. For most of our history, the provisions were opaquely written -- applying to any corporation which filed its incorporation papers in New York City on Dec. 2, 1906, to make up one example. Then journalists and reformers started digging out the earmarks put in by the "Cardinals," the chairmen of the Appropriations committee and its subcommittees. Numbers skyrocketed in the late 1990s, when Republican leaders in the House began using earmarks much more liberally (yes), bartering with all GOP members for votes on legislation. Democrats point out that they have cut the number of earmarks significantly, and that's true, as far as it goes.

Members of Congress point out, and fairly, that the White House can earmark money too, in its budget requests. As Ken likes to say in another context, it's all politics.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/politicaljunkie/2009/03/the_difference_between_earmark.html

Earmark is less loaded. Loosely, it's a provision that's added to a tax or spending bill by one or a few lawmakers.
A provision snuck into the bill without a committee hearing or other public discussion.

pork is about content and debated on!

These were in the bill and debated on by congressional leaders.



As for controlling earmarks and pork in legislation: This is the lookout of committee chairs, subcommittee chairs and congressional leaders. BAM!

This might interest you as well,


For most of our history, the provisions were opaquely written -- applying to any corporation which filed its incorporation papers in New York City on Dec. 2, 1906, to make up one example. Then journalists and reformers started digging out the earmarks put in by the "Cardinals," the chairmen of the Appropriations committee and its subcommittees. Numbers skyrocketed in the late 1990s, when Republican leaders in the House began using earmarks much more liberally (yes), bartering with all GOP members for votes on legislation. Democrats point out that they have cut the number of earmarks significantly, and that's true, as far as it goes.

fanta...I know who is responsible and what they are...as well as many others. talking down to people rally isn't flattering.

Quit arguing then!
I told you I dont adjust the truth or my stance according to a popularity contest or infatuation!

excuse me??? I made a point and you didn't get it. not my fault.

if you don't like the earmarks and the pork...you know who to thank

I got the point!
You just like to argue without facts!

Pork is inevitable. Every Senator and Representative is sent to Wash to fight for the citizens in their district or State.
The Republicans are the ones who made a big deal out of it. More unfounded attacks on Obama. They made themselves look stupid and proved their hypocrisy!

You have been wound pretty tight for some time now Glenn. How about I send you some cash for a hooker? Not sure what they charge but whatever it is it would be worth it for you since years of self inflicted celibacy have done little for your palms and less for your attitude. Oh, and Rose, you are too kind. Most women would have ripped into him and reminded him why his celibacy will continue after typing down to you as he has been doing. Perhaps he got Rose and Rosey confused? Glenn, Rose is a woman. No disrespctee, no talkee down to, no boingy boingy. Rosey is your palm and the one you talk down to. I hope that helps.No! Don't thank me! After all, what are friends for?

Fanta has a life sized poster of Obama taped to the ceiling above his bed.

Said it before and I will say it again...

It's only pork when it's served at someone elses table.

Senators have made careers on bringing home the bacon to their districts. They are celebrated and elected again and again.

Let's quit pretending to be outraged by it with posts like these. The reality is people love it or those pork farmers wouldn't keep getting reelected.

Good point.

I don't know of any politician that wouldn't take money handed to them. the government just gave certain states more than the others

<----still has I'm just a bill stuck in my head

Very nice and I do appreciate the definitions. Not really anything I didn't know, but I like having a well spelled out definition. However it does not even remotely address the issue I brought up.

Let me try to define this a little better... Yes you have shown that republicans have inserted the greatest about of earmarks and I won't and have not argued that. However you stated they have the most pork, but haven't shown any kind of analysis as what percentage of those earmarks were pork. For all I know in what I've been allowed to see from your links they could have only a very small percentage of the pork. If nearly all the earmarks by dems is pork and very little of the earmarks by reps are pork well then the dems could still be far worse. Granted I see that as unlikely, but you haven't shown me anything that proves otherwise.

Earmarks are inserted after the bill has been voted on and passed. Kinda like when Phil Gramm inserted the earmarks that deregulated the mortgage industry.

It's a shame you cant deduct that from the info I had previously provided, but you are bright and Im sure you will eventually get it!

When I read the thread's title, I knew it would only consist of some ill-informed biased opinions on what are supposed to be wasteful spending. Has anyone actually research on where the money is going to? I think not, and I don't care because when someone says "pork" then it is mostly a contemptuous remark against what they percieve is bad government planning by representatives who are doing what they naturally are supposed to be doing: that is keeping their fellow constituents working and creating jobs.

I smell obvious jackasses here.

I agree bu the purpose of this thread was designed to enlighten a few as to the hypocrisy of the Republican Party!
I was they who cried Pork after inserting their fair share!
As if they were guilt free.
There only purpose for doing so was a lame arse attack on a President who had only been in office for a month and an attempt to resuscitate their party from a weakening pulse!
They are dying and with no leadership are grasping at straws.

There's hypocrisy on both side of the party line. The word pork is a derisive way to place one's unfavorable opinion against another competitor who also want the same thing - Money.

LOL
You best buy your self a hooker Steve!
It may go over the heads of many here, but I see you are still so desperate that you attempt to rustle dates from thousands of miles away.
Hey, I dont blame you.
When you have already alienated every female within 100 miles of you.
When they already sees the the light of desperation that such an attraction would portray upon their self to anyone who respects them.
What choice do you have left!

If you don't intend to answer the question asked why do you bother to respond?