Difference between revisions of "110th United States Congress"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Conservative (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | [[Image:102.gif|350px|right|thumb|The Zogby International Poll reported a "paltry 11 percent rated Congress positively, beating the previous low of 14 percent in July." <ref>[http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1359 Reuters/Zogby Poll], Septermber 19, 2007.</ref>]] | + | <!--[[Image:102.gif|350px|right|thumb|The Zogby International Poll reported a "paltry 11 percent rated Congress positively, beating the previous low of 14 percent in July." <ref>[http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1359 Reuters/Zogby Poll], Septermber 19, 2007.</ref>]] |
The [[Democratic party]] which gained control of the [[U.S. House of Representatives]] in the 2006 Congressional midterm elections had promised major reforms within the first 100 hours. One reform in particular was lobbying and ethics reform--a key plank in the fall 2006 campaign. Democrats vowed greater openness in the Congressional Appropriations process, and an end to so-called "[[earmark]]s", an appropriation designated to spend specific money on a specific project in a specific members district, sometimes designating a specific private business concern to whom the money is to be spent with. Several Republican members had been caught up in so-called earmark scandals, trading money for influence, and this was widely accredited as a key reason why the GOP lost control of the House after a dozen years. | The [[Democratic party]] which gained control of the [[U.S. House of Representatives]] in the 2006 Congressional midterm elections had promised major reforms within the first 100 hours. One reform in particular was lobbying and ethics reform--a key plank in the fall 2006 campaign. Democrats vowed greater openness in the Congressional Appropriations process, and an end to so-called "[[earmark]]s", an appropriation designated to spend specific money on a specific project in a specific members district, sometimes designating a specific private business concern to whom the money is to be spent with. Several Republican members had been caught up in so-called earmark scandals, trading money for influence, and this was widely accredited as a key reason why the GOP lost control of the House after a dozen years. | ||