Partisan Free Politics

A little something for you open government folks…Josh

For Immediate Release
September 24, 2007

Contact:
Steve Ellis
Vice President
Taxpayers for Common Sense
steve@taxpayer.net
202-546-8500 ext 126

NEW ONLINE TOOL BRINGS TRANSPARENCY TO EARMARKS

On EarmarkWatch.org, Citizen Journalists Investigate Pork-barrel Spending

WASHINGTON, DC – EarmarkWatch.org, a new project from the Sunlight Foundation and Taxpayers for Common Sense, lets citizens determine if earmarks – the measures inserted by members of Congress into the various appropriations bills that direct funds to a specific project or recipient – address pressing needs, favor political contributors or are simply pure pork.

Building on Taxpayers for Common Sense’s (TCS) ground-breaking research and cataloging of earmarks, TCS and Sunlight Foundation today are launching EarmarkWatch.org, a user-friendly investigative tool and social networking site that enables citizens to add to the growing body of research into congressional spending.

“When Congress adopted new rules to provide more disclosure of earmark spending, Americans immediately volunteered to band together online to investigate whether their tax dollars pay for legitimate constituent needs or political favors,” said Ellen Miller, executive director of the Sunlight Foundation. “To meet this demand, we created EarmarkWatch.org to bring real citizen oversight to the very murky realm of congressional earmarks with a few clicks of the mouse.”

TCS created databases of the thousands of earmarks in the Fiscal Year 2008 spending bills; the Sunlight Foundation developed and designed the user interface. The Sunlight Foundation has been a leader in the development of citizen journalism tools, and has completed several successful citizen journalism projects, including “Congress as a Family Business.”

“Knowledge is power, and EarmarkWatch.org will arm the nation’s taxpayers with information about how lawmakers are spending federal dollars and empower citizens to challenge the murky world of special interest spending,” said Ryan Alexander, president of Taxpayers for Common Sense.

For the first time, constituents can research, evaluate and comment on the pet projects favored and funded by their members of Congress. Users are guided through a series of steps that an investigative reporter would follow, associating different kinds of political information with each earmark, and then they can further explore the information that interests them (or consult a handy list of tips and suggestions for continuing their research.)

EarmarkWatch.org guides citizen journalists to online resources on campaign finance, lobbying and federal spending, including OpenSecrets.org and FedSpending.org. Users can also comment on and fact-check one another’s work, or send messages – including tips and suggestions – to others.

In an alpha test of the tool, Sunlight researchers used it to determine that 17 of the 27 recipients of Defense earmarks sponsored by Rep. James Moran had contributed to his campaign or leadership PAC in 2007 – some $99,900 in all. Those 17 firms were showered with earmarks worth $24 million.

EarmarkWatch.org provides a single, elegant online repository for research and information on earmarks generated by concerned citizens interested in what their representatives in Congress are doing. At its launch, the site includes nearly 3,800 earmarks from three bills: the House Defense Appropriations bill and both the House and Senate versions of the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations bill. Sunlight and TCS will continue to develop the site, allowing for different kinds of research and information to be added to it, including earmarks from other appropriations bills.

The Sunlight Foundation supports, develops and deploys new Internet technologies to make information about Congress and the federal government more accessible to the American people. Through its projects and grant-making, Sunlight serves as a catalyst to create greater political transparency and to foster more openness and accountability in government.

Taxpayers for Common Sense is an independent voice for American taxpayers and is dedicated to cutting wasteful government spending and subsidies in order to achieve a responsible and efficient government that operates within its means.

• Comments (2)

I would like a discussion about whether or not Senator Craig should resign.

I heard one guy on NPR talk about how because Craig admitted to the crime, lewd conduct, he should resign.  Basically I find it hard to believe that it is the actual crime and not the supposed underlying act, or technically speaking the supposed intended act, that is causing the uproar.  If an elected official is convicted of some other rather minor misdemeanors to law and order, should they resign?  Frankly I think this is primarily about gay sex.

This opens up into a lot of issues, but I don’t have time to write presently b/c I have a free lunch to order and a bunch of money to make.  I am curious about other people’s thoughts and impressions.

• Comments (6)

President Bush’s steadfast support of Alberto Gonzalez has been an example of the major problem that arises when loyalty trumps all other qualities, be they competence, political viability, bipartisanship, or anything else. Whether an individual supports or opposes Bush, there is little likelihood that you can be proud of or confident in the performance of Alberto Gonzalez. This is something that should have happened long ago .

Now is an opportunity for Bush to be a uniter not a divider. Nominating someone who is not a Bush loyalist, not an insider, but a moderate bipartisan bridge who could, heaven for bid, even be retained under the next Administration, even if it is a Democratic president, would be great for this country.  We’ll see what Bush is made of.

• Comments (6)

Groundbreaking my ass.

• Comments (6)

I seriously love democracy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/15/AR2007071501108.html

(I’ll get around to learning how to make hyperlinks and such eventually, right now I don’t have time to work with the series of tubes and such that makes the internets…so there you go.)

• Comments (0)

Puts a few things in perspective.

http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200707/ecology.asp

• Comments (1)

You gotta love Congress, as a source of quotes if nothing else.  Following is a link to a weekly feature we produce at my current place of employment.  Our last installment was about the pay raise Congress is giving itself this year (and which they AUTOMATICALLY get each year unless they vote to stop it).  What a wonderful world they live in.

http://www.taxpayer.net/TCS/wastebasket/budget/2007-06-29payraise.html

I strongly suggest you follow the embedded links as well.  The last one, an article by CQ, is especially enlightening.  It makes me happy to see the leadership of each party finally coming through on their promises of bipartisanship… 

• Comments (0)

Reading my July edition of Beer Advocate magazine, I found a spectacular example of how difficult it can be to live up to one’s ideals.  While I am not a vegan, I know a few people who are and I respect their choice to live such a lifestyle, whatever their reason(s) for doing so.  I am well well aware of the fact that many vegetarians or vegans avoid products  containing gelatin, but until today I had never heard of isinglass. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isinglass

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/geraint.bevan/Vegetarian_beers.html#Adnams 

http://www.gonchong.co.uk/vegbeer.html

 Fascinating stuff.  From what I garnered reading BA and surfing the web it appears virtually none of the product is left in the beer that is bottled or kegged, just like virtually none of the yeast is left in a filtered beer.  But if you are truly concerned with avoiding animal products…wow.  What a price to pay.

Josh “I never actually killed the rabbits, I simply held them while they were clubbed” Sewell

• Comments (1)

Alright, I’m gonna try to get this ball rolling. I am not sure who will eventually be contributing to this blog, so I feel compelled to update everyone on exactly “where” I am in my life. Physically I am in DC after nearly two years in the Montana wilderness working for Project Vote Smart. Moving from Missouri to Montana to DC has

In wake of a number of news pieces on dumpster diving, freeganism, rampant consumerism and the like, Sam requested my thoughts on said matters. Following are a few of these thoughts. While I have A LOT to say on these issues, I am going to be as brief as possible. Consequently I will present truncated arguments, confusing statements and much will be left out. Please feel free to share any of your thoughts. Also pass along any resources on these issues of which you are aware. I’d like a dialogue, even if it is digital.

The economic system of which each of us is a part is not sustainable. That is it fundamentally cannot work in the long run because in reality it does not “work” presently depending on how you define “work”. The current system of capitalism is based on perpetual consumption. Success comes only with increased consumption. This is an issue because societies exist in a finite system. There is only x amount of each resource. History shows stupendous innovation and invention as particular resources are discovered, become scarce or new needs arise, however, ultimately there is a limit to the amount of material that exists. A fundamental law of physics is that energy is neither created nor destroyed. A system that fails to take this into account therefore is fundamentally flawed and ultimately doomed to failure.

I think our current economic system (and actually our political, social, racial and gender systems as well because they are intertwined with the economic system) fails to follow this basic law of physics. In making our decisions, as governments, corporations or consumers, we fail to account for some of the most important facts. Seeing as presently there is only one planet on which our society can and does exist, it is in our individual (“debatable” says the libertarian reading this…) and collective interest to maintain the Earth as a livable system. When societal actors–businesses, governments and individuals–make decisions on how to interact with the natural ecosystem and its resources, not all costs are built into the equations of analysis. You don’t pay for clean air, you don’t pay for clean water (nor do you ultimately pay for making them unclean) and you don’t base your analyses on calculations hemmed in by an understanding of the fact that resources are finite in a global/fundamental sense.

I think I may actually be discussing two issues. First, not all costs are accounted for in political and economic decision-making (contribution to global warming, effect on water table, effect on air quality, acid rain, biodiversity, prevalence of cancer, asthma, etc). The second is that the mechanisms used to evaluate “good” or “progress” are not based on a holistic understanding of existence; we live in a finite world and everything is tied together. That is, while there is no “end” to time, there is an end to the amount of oil that exists. There is also a limited number of Joules worth of energy. An example: I own a slaughterhouse north of New Orleans (the year is 1870) and all the effluent goes into the Mississippi River. Cost of pipe to the river is negligible. New Orleans has yearly cholera epidemics because of my thousands of tons of animal blood, excrement and rotting bits I dump into the river. The “true cost” is the capital to install and maintain my pipe, thousands of lives lost, the loss in productive capacity for Narlens, the loss of biodiversity due to blood rivers, etc, rather than my calculated cost of pretty much just my pipe. (How to calculate true cost? Good question. “Green accounting” is one, though there are others. But the fact that true costs are not calculated may be reason to label the current economic system as “failing” or not necessarily as “good” as it could be. That is our means of analysis [GDP, Consumer Confidence Index, Dow Jones, etc are limited and skew our ability to evaluate]. How does this relate to a failure to base our system on finite resources? I think it is an underlying understanding/attitude. Also it is more easily perceived, or at least its affects more obvious, in the energy and massive consumption aspects of our modern economy. Here is where I get to the freegans.)

Basically my thoughts on freegans is nice try, but not a solution. Adam Weissman seems to state a person who is concerned with many of the things of which I am concerned (rampant consumerism, wasted resources, an inequitable economic system) must “absent themselves from capitalism” if they are to put their money where their mouth is, so to speak. These freegans, however, are not absent from capitalism, they are the lampreys on the belly of the shark that is rampant consumer capitalism. Without capitalists and consumers these scavengers would have nothing to scavenge. This is an inescapable fact. Some sort of society must exist for the scavengers to scavenge. Also look at the specifics. This dude lives at home with his Dad & Grandparents. I’m assuming that he pays no rent, but rather lives in a shelter constructed and maintained by the products of the capitalist system in which his forefathers participate(d) in order to buy and maintain said house. Where is the “absence” in that? But I’m not here to be hyper-critical. These freegans and their fellow travelers are on the right track.

The notion that “the personal is political” all too often is used as an excuse to not grapple with and confront the larger, structural dimensions of an issue. No amount of personal action or personal purity has nor ever will have a structural impact on society. (Yeah I said it, so prove me wrong.) Typically collective progress is actually hampered by a focus on personal purity. (RINO [republicans in name only] hunters, Black Nationalists booting white allies from civil rights groups). The amount of time and sacrifices needed to come even close to being a pure freegan are unattainable for most people. It’s a good thing the people in this article understand this. The value of freeganism is found in its promotion of community, conservation and efficiency as well as in the modification of an individual’s actions and attitude. Now the key to making freeganism more than another fad of the bourgeoisie is to confront the mechanisms of power in an attempt to change society.

Ultimately individual activity must only be a part of collective action in pursuit of a more rational economic system. Seek purity, be an example, but don’t do it at the expense of being able to confront the structural issues facing society. It’s time to reorient our society, not one man at a time, but through the mechanisms of economic and political power. The locus for this is the green revolution. There are a number of “movements” already afoot. Clean energy, local food, organic production, fair trade, all of these represent a modification of the current socio-political-economic system. To make them effective, you must not simply follow their guidelines, but find your niche in society and use your position of power to promote change. Dig in dumpsters all you want, but don’t quit your day job.

That’s what I think.

Josh

Libertarian-Socialist living Inside the Beltway

• Comments (10)