“Da Guys” in Congress

Back in the neighborhood in Brooklyn where I grew up one simply referred to “da guys” as the members of what’s politely called organized crime, otherwise known as the Mafia, who stole with a paternal smile or threatening sneer. Everyone knew what was happening, and kept quiet about it.

Our congressmen (and ladies) may now be referred to as “da guys,” as Mark Tapscott describes their identities being masked while they plunder our public purse (otherwise known as your and my hard-earned income that is taxed away).

The most important names in any earmark discussion are those of the requesting Members of Congress. If your Congressman Hornblower slips in an earmark directing $50 million to a consulting firm that just happens to be owned by his biggest campaign donor, it's important to know Hornblower's name. Otherwise, he or she gets by with it because there's no way to have accountability….

Yet, OMB made it crystal clear today that the names of earmark-requesting Members of Congress will not be included on the OMB earmarks database on the Internet….

Why not make those names public? If only on the principle that anything in government that somebody absolutely, positively insists on doing in the dark might not be on the up and up?

Next, let's talk about those second most important names, the recipients of earmarks requested by congressmen that will not be named by OMB….

When I go back now and re-read the president's State of the Union speech in which he first addressed the issue of earmarks, I see this paragraph:
"Next, there is the matter of earmarks. These special interest items are often slipped into bills at the last hour -- when not even C-SPAN is watching. (Laughter.) In 2005 alone, the number of earmarks grew to over 13,000 and totaled nearly $18 billion.
"Even worse, over 90 percent of earmarks never make it to the floor of the House and Senate -- they are dropped into committee reports that are not even part of the bill that arrives on my desk. You didn't vote them into law. I didn't sign them into law. Yet, they're treated as if they have the force of law.
"The time has come to end this practice. So let us work together to reform the budget process, expose every earmark to the light of day and to a vote in Congress, and cut the number and cost of earmarks at least in half by the end of this session."

Somebody is spending your tax dollars but they are doing it without it being part of a bill voted on by Congress and signed by the president. Sounds like it shouldn't be law but it is treated like real law. Wouldn't you want to know who is responsible?