The democrats swept in to office and were taking everything to the cleaners - ethics would guide and all would follow. Unlike the evil retardicans, the nice friendly Democrats would abide by rules and enact serious ethical changes.
Sort of.
With great fanfare, Congress adopted strict ethics rules last year requiring members to disclose when they steered federal money to pet projects. But it turns out lawmakers can still secretly direct billions of dollars to favored organizations by making vague requests rather than issuing explicit instructions to government agencies in committee reports and spending bills. That seeming courtesy is the difference between “soft earmarks” and the more insistent “hard earmarks.”
How much money is requested for any specific project? It is difficult to say, since price tags are not included with soft earmarks. Who is the sponsor? Unclear, unless the lawmaker later acknowledges it. Purpose of the spending? Usually not provided.
How to spot a soft earmark? Easy. The language is that of a respectful suggestion: A committee “endorses” or notes it “is aware” of deserving programs and “urges” or “recommends” that agencies finance them.
I love truth-tellers. They claim this as an accomplishment, yet it parses words and plays word games - depending on the definition of 'is'.
Posts
