"I liked it better when being a grown-up was a prerequisite to joining the Senate Republican leadership."

When, pray tell, was that a prerequisite? It's been a long time.

Obama = Socialist

Earmarks, socialism, liberal...Repugs pick a word and try to define it as evil - that's what they've been good at for years but it just isn't working for them anymore. Poor, poor souls....Nobody listens to them anymore.

Kyl lied to the Supreme Court during the Hamdan case. Do you really think that the sort of person who lies to the highest court in the land cares what anyone else thinks?

Thanks for the rational comments on earmarks. They aren't all bad, although in the past the practice has been abused.

Former Republican House Speaker Denny Hastert lined his pockets with highway earmarks. On the other hand, Chicago's state-of-the-art planetarium projector sounds like a valuable expense.

I wish they could write these bills in such a way that any senator or representative who votes no on the bill automatically vetoes their own earmarks. The way it is now Kyl and like minded legislators get to posture against the bill while benefitting from the earmarks they added on behalf of their constituents.

Wouldn't it be nice for them to put their money where their mouth is?

Definition of Earmark: to set aside or reserve for a special purpose.

It doesn't mean "waste" or "random, unaccountable spending".

What "definition" is Kyl talking about here: "they're not earmarks under the definition"? However he is correct in calling his requests earmarks when he says: "we have a specific definition". Right, Jon, that's the definition of an earmark!

Jon Kyl, simply put, is a hypocrite of the highest order. And his AZ co-senator isn't helping the discussion either.

Sheesh.

of course the media dosen't note that earmark spending exploded - the dollar amount - under Bush. And the top eramark spenders in the buget bill are 2 republicans from mississippi.

This earmark grandstanding they're doing has really backfired. Seems like every news org is running their statements on the Senate floor and then listing the number and amount of their own earmarks. Did they honestly think no one would CHECK?

Earmarks are what the other guy wants for his district (especially if the other guy is in the other party).

Why can't they all just grow up and come up with some (small) percentage of the overall budget/appropriations package, and call it "Congressionally Directed Appropriations", and be done with it. There is nothing (necessarily) wrong with political considerations being part of what gets money spent on it, as long as it isn't that much (you know, separations of powers and all that).

Steve Benen wrote: "Kyl, like a few too many of his GOP colleagues, are playing a cheap game ..."

Glad you are no longer saying that they are "confused". That's progress.

However, to be grammatically correct, that sentence should read "is playing a cheap game ...".

Why can't they all just grow up and come up with some (small) percentage of the overall budget/appropriations package, and call it "Congressionally Directed Appropriations", and be done with it.

Uh... they did. It's called 'earmarks'. The word only took on negative connotations after the GOP started demonizing the process.

The total for 'earmarks' in this legislation is less than two percent of the total. What most people fail to realize is that earmarks don't increase the budget one iota. They simply direct a tiny fragment of it. If you withdrew an earmark for, say, wetlands restoration in your district, the money simply goes back into the total 'wetlands restoration' pot to be doled out by whatever the appropriate federal agency is.

The whole argument is based on lies and misdirection.

"The word only took on negative connotations after the GOP significantly expanded the use of earmarks."

My version isn't necessarily inconsistent with yours, but it is worth noting that the Republican Congresses from 1994 to 2006 dramatically expanded both the numbers and dollar values of earmarks.

When did Arizona elect Lewis Fucking Carroll to the U.S. Senate? Because that's who Kyl's ripping off: "When I use a word, it means what *I* want it to mean." (or something like that)

I believe what Sen. Kyl is trying to say is that what is definable as an earmark really depends on what the definition of "is" is...kind of like a blow job and whether it counts as sex or not.

Anytime a God-fearing, righteous Republican adds a provision to a spending bill that funds some special project or pays back a wealthy campaign contributor in their district or state, then it isn't an earmark. So, pay no attention to the huge increase in these special little funding provisions over the twelve years righteous, small-government, fiscally-responsible Republicans controlled the U.S. House of Representatives weren't earmarks (compared to when the Democrats controlled the House previously).s

On the other hand, when Democrats add such a provision, the puppet Republicans repeat their daily right-wing talking point, yelling "Earmark, earmark, earmark!!!" while conveniently ignoring their own earmarks in the same spending bill.

Hypocrites is actually too kind a word for these Republicans.