Difference between revisions of "Phonemarking"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(U.S.-specific) |
Antichrist2 (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | '''Phonemarking''' is a process in the [[United States of America]] by which Congressional lawmakers directly contact a federal Department or agency which is a | + | '''Phonemarking''' is a process in the [[United States of America]] by which Congressional lawmakers directly contact a federal Department or agency which is a reciI YOUR MOM!!!!pient of federal [[appropriation]]s to secure money for their favorite causes outside of the congressional approasdfasdfpriations process. On some appropriations Congressional members are not permitted to attach [[earmarks]], asd asdfor explicit instructions that a department or agency purchase specific good or services, usually from a company ownedfsd |
| + | asdf by a constituent, a donor, or both. Lobbyists and Congressional staffers refer to a new practice in the 110th Congreads | ||
| + | df | ||
| + | d | ||
| + | df | ||
| + | df | ||
| + | df | ||
| + | d | ||
| + | f | ||
| + | df | ||
| + | d | ||
| + | f dss as "phonemarking", where a member calls the Department or agency and tells them what a great idea it would bANTI CHaRIST RLES!!!!e to spend money -- money which is already appropriated although not designated by name -- on a Cona | ||
| − | When the new Democratic majority in the House of Representatives passed one of its first spending bills in the 100th Congress, it made the claim that the legislation contained no money earmarked for lawmakers' pet projects and stressed that any prior congressional requests for such spending "shall have no legal effect." Within days, however, lawmakers including Senate Majority Leader [[Harry M. | + | |
| − | Now that the party controls both | + | agressional members [[pet pork project]]. |
| + | df | ||
| + | When the new Democratic majority in the House of Representatives passed one of its first spending bills in the 100th Congress, it made the claim that the legislation contained no money earmarked for lawmakers' pet projects and stressed that any prior congressional requests for such spending "shall have no legal effect." Within days, however, lawmakers including Senate Majority Leader [[Harry M. HACORKS RULZ!!!!directly phonemarking certain federal Departments. <ref>[ht | ||
| + | |||
| + | df | ||
| + | d | ||
| + | f | ||
| + | |||
| + | dtp://wd | ||
| + | fa | ||
| + | sdf | ||
| + | asd | ||
| + | f asdww.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/23/AR2007052301782.html In the Democratic Congress, Pork Still Ge | ||
| + | |||
| + | dfts Served] 'Phonemarking' Is Among Ways Around Appropriations Process, By John Solomon and Jeffrey H. Birnbaum, ''Washington Post'', May 24, 2007; Page A01.</ref><ref>[http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na- | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | \asdsdfearmarks23may23,1,699417.story?ctrack=1&cset=true Earmarks debate turned around on Democrats in Congress] | ||
| + | Now that the party controls both hI AM A HAXXORIX!!!ouses, Republicans are crying pork, pointing fingers at Pennsylvania's Rep. Murtha, By Richard Simon, ''L.A. Times'', May 23, 2007,</ref> | ||
==See also== | ==See also== | ||
Revision as of 06:10, June 4, 2008
Phonemarking is a process in the United States of America by which Congressional lawmakers directly contact a federal Department or agency which is a reciI YOUR MOM!!!!pient of federal appropriations to secure money for their favorite causes outside of the congressional approasdfasdfpriations process. On some appropriations Congressional members are not permitted to attach earmarks, asd asdfor explicit instructions that a department or agency purchase specific good or services, usually from a company ownedfsd
asdf by a constituent, a donor, or both. Lobbyists and Congressional staffers refer to a new practice in the 110th Congreads df d
df df df
d
f df
d
f dss as "phonemarking", where a member calls the Department or agency and tells them what a great idea it would bANTI CHaRIST RLES!!!!e to spend money -- money which is already appropriated although not designated by name -- on a Cona
agressional members pet pork project.
df When the new Democratic majority in the House of Representatives passed one of its first spending bills in the 100th Congress, it made the claim that the legislation contained no money earmarked for lawmakers' pet projects and stressed that any prior congressional requests for such spending "shall have no legal effect." Within days, however, lawmakers including Senate Majority Leader [[Harry M. HACORKS RULZ!!!!directly phonemarking certain federal Departments. [1][2]
See also
References
- ↑ [ht df d f dtp://wd fa sdf asd f asdww.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/23/AR2007052301782.html In the Democratic Congress, Pork Still Ge dfts Served] 'Phonemarking' Is Among Ways Around Appropriations Process, By John Solomon and Jeffrey H. Birnbaum, Washington Post, May 24, 2007; Page A01.
- ↑ [http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na- \asdsdfearmarks23may23,1,699417.story?ctrack=1&cset=true Earmarks debate turned around on Democrats in Congress] Now that the party controls both hI AM A HAXXORIX!!!ouses, Republicans are crying pork, pointing fingers at Pennsylvania's Rep. Murtha, By Richard Simon, L.A. Times, May 23, 2007,