Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

In a bigger shift from his campaign pledge to end earmarks, he tells me that they are a bad "symbol" of easy spending but that he will fight for Kentucky's share of earmarks and federal pork, as long as it's doled out transparently at the committee level and not parachuted in in the dead of night. "I will advocate for Kentucky's interests," he says.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

In a bigger shift from his campaign pledge to end earmarks, he tells me that they are a bad "symbol" of easy spending but that he will fight for Kentucky's share of earmarks and federal pork, as long as it's doled out transparently at the committee level and not parachuted in in the dead of night. "I will advocate for Kentucky's interests," he says.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 68782.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 68782.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So he's saying he will fight against this sort of thing for all states as a union to get rid of it across the board but until that time comes there is a certain amount of money in the kitty that states will be grabbing and he is gonna grab Kentucky's portion until it goes away.

The federal government will still be lining the till with money from Kentucky to hand out so they will stand in line until it goes away correct?

It makes sense to me.

native wrote:

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote: So he's saying he will fight against this sort of thing for all states as a union to get rid of it across the board but until that time comes there is a certain amount of money in the kitty that states will be grabbing and he is gonna grab Kentucky's portion until it goes away.

The federal government will still be lining the till with money from Kentucky to hand out so they will stand in line until it goes away correct?

It makes sense to me.

Yup. Especially if the Congress succeeds in eliminating earmarks this year and reducing the overall budget.

native wrote:

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote: So he's saying he will fight against this sort of thing for all states as a union to get rid of it across the board but until that time comes there is a certain amount of money in the kitty that states will be grabbing and he is gonna grab Kentucky's portion until it goes away.

The federal government will still be lining the till with money from Kentucky to hand out so they will stand in line until it goes away correct?

It makes sense to me.

Yup. Especially if the Congress succeeds in eliminating earmarks this year and reducing the overall budget.

kalm wrote:

native wrote:
Yup. Especially if the Congress succeeds in eliminating earmarks this year and reducing the overall budget.

Perhaps they really mean it this time.

Consequently, unless you change your position, we plan to engage in an orderly transition to wind down Wisconsin's project so that we do not waste taxpayers' money.

Skjellyfetti wrote:I'd like to see them force these fuckers hand. If you think the bill is government waste... don't come asking for money from it. Fuck you.

Consequently, unless you change your position, we plan to engage in an orderly transition to wind down Wisconsin's project so that we do not waste taxpayers' money.

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/11/09 ... 87303.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Walker, who is currently the county executive of Milwaukee County, campaigned heavily against a proposed high-speed line to link Milwaukee and Madison that would eventually be part of a Midwest network. Decrying the project as a waste of tax dollars, he has called for the cash to be redistributed to highway and bridge repairs in his state.

But LaHood said the stimulus grants must be spent on rail projects.

"None of the money provided to Wisconsin may be used for road or highway projects, or anything other than high-speed rail," LaHood wrote. "Consequently, unless you change your position, we plan to engage in an orderly transition to wind down Wisconsin's project so that we do not waste taxpayers' money."

Skjellyfetti wrote:You mean the highways and bridges Wisconsin got $529,000,000 out of the stimulus bill for?

AZGrizFan wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:You mean the highways and bridges Wisconsin got $529,000,000 out of the stimulus bill for?

Is it even remotely possible that $529 MM isn't enough? Have you read all the studies? Do you know the answer to that question? Perhaps the new governor has a tad bit better info than you?

AZGrizFan wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:I'd like to see them force these fuckers hand. If you think the bill is government waste... don't come asking for money from it. Fuck you.


http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/11/09 ... 87303.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So, instead of actually maintaining infrastructure that ALREADY exists, they'd rather piss away money on ANOTHER infrastructure system that they then won't have the money to maintain?

Walker, who is currently the county executive of Milwaukee County, campaigned heavily against a proposed high-speed line to link Milwaukee and Madison that would eventually be part of a Midwest network. Decrying the project as a waste of tax dollars, he has called for the cash to be redistributed to highway and bridge repairs in his state.

But LaHood said the stimulus grants must be spent on rail projects.

"None of the money provided to Wisconsin may be used for road or highway projects, or anything other than high-speed rail," LaHood wrote. "Consequently, unless you change your position, we plan to engage in an orderly transition to wind down Wisconsin's project so that we do not waste taxpayers' money."

Makes perfect sense to me, KY...

Cap'n Cat wrote: No forward thinking, whatsoever, among Conks. Save now, suffer later. Blame it on Dems.

kalm wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote: No forward thinking, whatsoever, among Conks. Save now, suffer later. Blame it on Dems.

It's like watching Nova in the second half of the Chipper last year. When you have something that works that well you don't even need to open the rest of the playbook.

Cap'n Cat wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
So, instead of actually maintaining infrastructure that ALREADY exists, they'd rather piss away money on ANOTHER infrastructure system that they then won't have the money to maintain?



Makes perfect sense to me, KY...

What's wildly entertaining about Z and most of his Conk ilk is that they will be the first motherfvckers complaining about the roads we chose not to fix the right way and, instead, band-aided with temporary patches. Especially when boulevard access becomes shitty to their job-exporting multinational corporate palaces in the suburbs, from which they rake in 90% of their campaign cash. A few front end alignments to their Jaguars and Caddys and Porsches and they'll be up in arms about the condition of infrastructure.....again.

No forward thinking, whatsoever, among Conks. Save now, suffer later. Blame it on Dems.

Appaholic wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:


What's wildly entertaining about Z and most of his Conk ilk is that they will be the first motherfvckers complaining about the roads we chose not to fix the right way and, instead, band-aided with temporary patches. Especially when boulevard access becomes shitty to their job-exporting multinational corporate palaces in the suburbs, from which they rake in 90% of their campaign cash. A few front end alignments to their Jaguars and Caddys and Porsches and they'll be up in arms about the condition of infrastructure.....again.

No forward thinking, whatsoever, among Conks. Save now, suffer later. Blame it on Dems.

...or maybe it's because as taxes & government-mandated regulatory fees continue to increase nationwide to support the existing infrastructure, we continue to have to get front-end alignments as we drive to the unemployment office past the sign promoting American Recovery & Re-Investment Act....

AZGrizFan wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:You mean the highways and bridges Wisconsin got $529,000,000 out of the stimulus bill for?

Is it even remotely possible that $529 MM isn't enough? Have you read all the studies? Do you know the answer to that question? Perhaps the new governor has a tad bit better info than you?

Skjellyfetti wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Is it even remotely possible that $529 MM isn't enough? Have you read all the studies? Do you know the answer to that question? Perhaps the new governor has a tad bit better info than you?

I do know that 529 million is more than Wisconsin's biennial budget for the Department of Transportation for 2009-2011.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Is it even remotely possible that $529 MM isn't enough? Have you read all the studies? Do you know the answer to that question? Perhaps the new governor has a tad bit better info than you?

I do know that 529 million is more than Wisconsin's biennial budget for the Department of Transportation for 2009-2011.

Maybe Wisconsin should pull themselves up from the bootstraps and pay for their own infrastructure. That would be the fiscally conservative thing to do, amirite?

AZGrizFan wrote:
And I'm pretty sure that Wisconsin's biennial budget doesn't include repairing EVERY bridge, overpass, freeway, highway, on ramp, etc., etc., etc., that actually NEEDS repair. Most of it goes to salaries of the 8 guys who stand around for every one that works.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
And I'm pretty sure that Wisconsin's biennial budget doesn't include repairing EVERY bridge, overpass, freeway, highway, on ramp, etc., etc., etc., that actually NEEDS repair. Most of it goes to salaries of the 8 guys who stand around for every one that works.

Sounds like Wisconsin needs to sort out their government waste.

The problem is the public has been brainwashed into thinking — and a lot of these are the very liberal, uh, members of Congress — into thinking that earmarks are somehow all bad. Well, if you quit saying "earmark" and say "appropriations" then I'll buy it.

Ivytalk wrote:Ayn Rand Paul?