Get ready for higher taxes and a new recession....the democrats are in power!

Time will tell if there will be REAL change in the way Congress operates. However, these changes DID not come to light under the GOP for the past 12 years!

Because the GOP wasn't trying to hurt America and hurt American business.

Yeah I forgot about that. I guess I better fold up my business and fire my people while I take this new civil service job.

How is embracing Mollohan, who made a fortune off of earmarks, anything but business as usual? Pelosi is poised to allow him to be in charge of the committee who funds the people who are investigating him. You're not so blind that you'd miss that, you're just whitewashing as always.

Bakerstreet

How does that address the issues I raised? Earmarks went from 1,400 per year under the democrats to 14,000 last year by the GOP. You sight one example. Face it-- The GOP abuse of power is coming to an end.

"How does that address the issues I raised?"

Uh, your point is that the Dems are changing things. Obviously, they are just delegating the job of guarding the bank to the thieves. It would take a bias as strong as yours to see that as "change".

They've already broken their promises. They've already financially backed and favored members of their party known to be corrupt. Nothing in the future will be any different, you've just opened the gates to a different family of huns.

paladin 77

The difference is BUYING access and favors not freedom of speech. The BIG BUCKS that change hands has nothing to do with Freedom of Speech. It has everything to do with trying to influence legislation to benefit who you lobby for.

The requirement to disclose who proposed the earmark and requirement to justify the reason for sending tax dollars is a step in the right direction that the GOP failed to take for the past 12 years.

drmiler

No, more like the $230 Million for a Bridge to an island where 50 people lived in Alaska. The $90,000 is not justified and if guilty the democrat should be punished. However, the $230 Million is of a size that will show up on the overall budget screen.

The difference is BUYING access and favors not freedom of speech. The BIG BUCKS that change hands has nothing to do with Freedom of Speech. It has everything to do with trying to influence legislation to benefit who you lobby for.

The big bucks you speak of are called bribes paid to influence votes. That is against the law. Lobbyist are paid to support legislators that vote their way. If you are pro-life you would get money from lobbyist that support the pro life adgenda. If you are pro-death I mean pro-choice you get money from lobbyist that support that adgenda. It is a fair system because there are almost always two sides to every law. The money is not given to the legislator but the campain fund. Unless you are a dishonest person in government, in which case the person should be kicked out of public service. So far two Republicans have been forced out for this shameful conduct just because it hit the news. On the other side no one has been forced out of office. It makes it appear that there is a culture of corruption on the other side. You can not legislate morality no matter how hard you try. Liberals will write a new law every time they get caught doing something wrong but rarely will they get rid of the offender. Congressman Rostinkowski is a famous example. He did not resign from office he had to be kicked out of office severla weeks after he went to jail for accepting bribes. At first the Dems calimed innocent until proven guilty, as reason that he should keep his seat. Then when he was convicted they said he had to go through the appeals process. He was in federal lock up with a sentance of I think of 10 years before he was stripped of his seat and the jerk had the guts to run for office while in prison. Did the Democrats put a stop to him? Nope. Contrast that with Congressman Cunningham, he got caught doing bad things and resigned before there was a trial. Why is it that the Democrats always try to beat the system if it will help them hold on to power? That is not morality it is power mongering.

Paladin77

Too many times what the Lobbies want and what they pay for is to get members of congress to VOTE their way and does not benefit the majority just the people. We should insist the people we elect serve those that elect them not an interest of special interest groups that pays for trips, food etc. The action of the Democrats to cut off this will help but we need more to make Congress serve those that they represent. I hope the K Street bunch is put out of business.

drmiler

O Contraire. The change that will require those that initiate the Earmarks and Pork to be identified and to be required to JUSTIFY these pet projects will make that much harder to sneak expenditures into bills. To have gone from 1,400 per year under the democrats to 14,000 last year under the GOP SAYS IT ALL!!!!

kinda like the laws on illegal immigration. We can't even enforce the laws we have, so we need to make new laws....

The issue is that many times the lobbies support the interest of a small group of companies or special interests. What they attempt to get Congress to do very often does so at the expense of the majority to help a group like the oil companies.

The Bridge was to help 50 people at a cost of $230 Million and was not debated as to its worth but tacked on to a bill and there was no requirements for the person attaching the earmark to be identified. The explosion from 1,400 under the democrats to 14,000 Earmarks in 2006 is proof this process IS NOT WORKING. How much of the Annual Budget Deficit is made up of spending created by these Earmarks that are NEVER debated or evaluated against other requirements for our country? The Changes made by the democrats is LONG OVER DUE!

Which special interests, Col? Just the bad old people working for money? What about NoW? What about NARAL? CAIR? AIDS activism? GLAAD? Where do you draw the line with your scrutiny of "influence".

Compare, for instance, the number of people who, say, have HIV in the US as opposed to those whose lives are directly tied oil industry. Now by your standards the oil industry would be a "small group of companies" imposing their will on government, but in reality their issued have a LOT more to do with our nations welfare than, say, AIDS activism lobbyists.