Naming Contest: What To Call Earmarks?
Nancy Pelosi, who campaigned on a platform of ending lobbyist influence and the "culture of corruption" in Congress, has unveiled a new strategy to do both. She wants people to call pork-barrel line items something other than "earmarks" so that Congress can get back to stuffing legislation full of pet projects and keep their leverage with the lobbyists:
The congressional spending season began with a blowup over earmarks in the House yesterday, as the first bill to reach a vote prompted a White House veto threat and scores of amendments from Republicans furious with Democrats' handling of pet-project spending in the measures.Debate on the $36 billion homeland security bill, which would fund the Federal Emergency Management Agency, border security and counterterrorism measures, bogged down last night as Republicans pushed scores of amendments aimed at banning the use of counterterrorism money for designer handbags, puppet shows and other programs included in the legislation. Democrats, intent on passing 11 of the 12 appropriations measures before the July 4 recess, responded by vowing to stay through the weekend if needed to break the deadlock. ...
"Why don't we just leave this room today forgetting the word 'earmark'?" suggested Pelosi. "This is a way for . . . members to come together, sometimes in a bipartisan way, to have the Congress of the United States determine some of what is in the appropriations bills instead of just leaving it up to the White House."
Bipartisanship was in short supply yesterday. In speech after speech, Republicans attacked a plan by House Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey (D-Wis.) to keep hundreds of earmark requests out of the bills until later in the process. Though Obey estimates that such spending accounts for less than 2 percent of the bills' combined tab of $955 billion, he said he has been snowed under by more than 30,000 lawmaker "boodle" requests. To give himself and committee staff members more time to screen them, he plans to drop the earmarks into the bills when they move to the House-Senate conference committees before the August break, giving members and the public a month to review and question them. Any changes could be made when the House bills are reconciled with Senate versions, he said.
What a great strategy for cleaning up government! We just simply rename pork-barrel projects to something more melodious to the ear, and then stick them into bills so late in the process that they cannot be removed. The Wall Street Journal explains:
At least Republicans allowed earmark votes on the floor. Under Mr. Obey, earmarks won't be vetted in an Appropriations subcommittee, or at the Rules Committee, or on the floor. They will be kept secret before the House votes on spending bills, to be unveiled only later when it is time to prepare a final House-Senate conference report. Only then will backbenchers be able to raise questions about individual earmarks -- in writing, to Mr. Obey's "staff," which will then get to decide whether the earmarks survive or not. Guess what "the staff" decision will be on an earmark requested by, say, Powerhouse Democrat Jack Murtha and a challenge raised by some first-term Republican from Amarillo?
In other words, the Democrats have not acted on behalf of open government. They have deliberately acted to keep earmarks concealed, and also make it more difficult to root them out. As Jack Murtha demonstrated in his tirade, the Democrats have every intention of using earmarks for arm-twisting and backroom deals that encourage the kind of corruption that existed at the heart of the Duke Cunningham and William "Dollar Bill" Jefferson cases.
Earmarks give legislators too much individual power, and usually result in a waste of federal monies. They allow incumbents to create an entrenched interest in their districts and states that have less to do with good policy and more to do with inordinate spending. They reward lobbyists who shower legislators with contributions and fundraisers, which then incentivizes Congress to demand more and more money from taxpayers to fund these pet projects.
And Nancy Pelosi's plan to fight this corruption of the legislative process is to call earmarks something else. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, as the saying goes -- and pig manure as well.
But let's get in the spirit of this thing. Let's get some suggestions for new names. We'll collect them in the comments today, and tomorrow we'll hold a run-off poll to select the new nomenclature for pork-barrel spending. If that's how Nancy Pelosi intends to clean up Washington, we can provide some needed assistance.
UPDATE: Please make sure you leave your entry in the comments section. The winning entry from the run-off will get a free copy of The Reagan Diaries, as an antidote to the inanity that Pelosi's leadership has provided. In the meantime, check out Mark Tapscott's review of the media reaction to David Obey, which is a lot more negative than you'd imagine.
Posted by Ed Morrissey on June 13, 2007 11:02 AM | Comments (138) | TrackBacks (1)
Comments (138)
Posted by John Gault | June 13, 2007 11:30 AM
Well the Dems did rename taxes to "contributions" under Clinton. Same people, same result.
Posted by AnonymousDrivel | June 13, 2007 11:36 AM
Bribery - you've come a long way, baby!
That's not my competition entry, by the way. I'm pretty sure Congresscritters don't want to use honesty in legislation any time soon.
Anyone hear of some good, third-party candidates?
Posted by Stephen Macklin | June 13, 2007 11:36 AM
I suppose just calling them "taxpayer funded campaign contributions" would be too forthright.
How about "incumbency insurance?" Nah that won't fly.
Can we just cal them Kickbacks?
I don't think I'm any good at this.
Posted by CM | June 13, 2007 11:37 AM
How about... Discretionary Mandate Expenditures....it could be pronounced "dummies"
Posted by cirby | June 13, 2007 11:38 AM
Peloffs (Pelosi + payoff)
"Not-really-bribes"
Porkulations
Posted by RBMN | June 13, 2007 11:38 AM
Grease spots.
Posted by John Stephens | June 13, 2007 11:38 AM
In keeping with the other recent political trends in Washington, how about "La Mordita"?
Posted by Carol Herman | June 13, 2007 11:39 AM
Actually, we're on the cusp of change because of the Internet.
Basically, everyone who did business the "old way" ... is about to be "swept away."
Because the old media isn't the source people go to to get informed. And, the speed of the Net is atronomical.
Whether McCain, for instance, sits there like a bump on a log, or not; hardly makes a difference, now. Because you can ASSUME that thru the Net you've learned a few things about the "formerly powerful."
The Net "equalized it" away.
Will there still be "bill writing" that harms us, as thieves abscound with the gold? Sure thing. But you can't run banks by allowing this stuff to happen.
And, that's where the changes will come.
How so?
Here's my bet. IN THE FUTURE politicians will feel the heat through the Net. Where they'll get competition. What's that headline, today? Coleman's got a competitor already running into the primary?
Some of the politicians will get religion.
McCain won't. But that's why McCain's in trouble.
Of course, the parties are not equal. That's why the GOP has a competitive stage for the nomination process of 2008. And, the donks have nothing.
Is it because the conservatives get those who can read and write? Because if all things are "equal," having a party that is dedicated to those who particpate is a better party than the one where people are illiterate.
Can the Net even change that, someday? Sure. You'll be able to talk into your computer, and the keys will work by themselves. No need even for the monkeys experiment, trying to produce Shakespeare. Where, even if this could be proven, you'd never call on the monkeys to do the re-writes.
The best topics cut across the board. And, when the congress critters appear to be dishonest, there's no way they can compete against the rising tide of angry citizens. It's just not in the cards.
Posted by Faith+1 | June 13, 2007 11:41 AM
Payola.
Posted by sherlock | June 13, 2007 11:41 AM
How about something from Star Wars:
"Obey-wan-Pelosi's"
Posted by almost vegetarian | June 13, 2007 11:45 AM
Ah, the power of words. A rose by any other name ... well, if it was in Washnigton would it really smell as sweet?
Cheers!
Posted by Carol Herman | June 13, 2007 11:45 AM
Actually, we're on the cusp of change because of the Internet.
Basically, everyone who did business the "old way" ... is about to be "swept away."
Because the old media isn't the source people go to to get informed. And, the speed of the Net is atronomical.
Whether McCain, for instance, sits there like a bump on a log, or not; hardly makes a difference, now. Because you can ASSUME that thru the Net you've learned a few things about the "formerly powerful."
The Net "equalized it" away.
Will there still be "bill writing" that harms us, as thieves abscound with the gold? Sure thing. But you can't run banks by allowing this stuff to happen.
And, that's where the changes will come.
How so?
Here's my bet. IN THE FUTURE politicians will feel the heat through the Net. Where they'll get competition. What's that headline, today? Coleman's got a competitor already running into the primary?
Some of the politicians will get religion.
McCain won't. But that's why McCain's in trouble.
Of course, the parties are not equal. That's why the GOP has a competitive stage for the nomination process of 2008. And, the donks have nothing.
Is it because the conservatives get those who can read and write? Because if all things are "equal," having a party that is dedicated to those who particpate is a better party than the one where people are illiterate.
Can the Net even change that, someday? Sure. You'll be able to talk into your computer, and the keys will work by themselves. No need even for the monkeys experiment, trying to produce Shakespeare. Where, even if this could be proven, you'd never call on the monkeys to do the re-writes.
The best topics cut across the board. And, when the congress critters appear to be dishonest, there's no way they can compete against the rising tide of angry citizens. It's just not in the cards.
Posted by Jimmie | June 13, 2007 11:50 AM
Cute Kitty Cat Budget Augmentations.
Happy Puppy Dog Adjustments
Because no one could vote agaisnt cute kitty cats and happy puppy dogs!
Posted by Jeanette | June 13, 2007 11:57 AM
Piggy Bank
Posted by MrP | June 13, 2007 11:57 AM
Restraint-Challenged Expenditures
Posted by Jeanette | June 13, 2007 12:00 PM
Pig in a blanket
Posted by GarandFan | June 13, 2007 12:01 PM
"Squat"
Posted by Jeanette | June 13, 2007 12:01 PM
Filet Mignon and that's my final answer!
Posted by docjim505 | June 13, 2007 12:04 PM
Though Obey estimates that such spending accounts for less than 2 percent of the bills' combined tab of $955 billion...
This is how members of Congress and their supporters (on BOTH sides) justify this thievery: "It's only 2% of the federal budget!"
Now, what to call an earmark so it sounds good and will stop irate taxpayer from complaining to their members of Congress?
How about Bipartisan Revenue Investments (BRI's)?
Advantages for this term:
- It has the magic word "bipartisan" in it. And, in all honesty, pork barrel is one of the very few things that is genuinely bipartisan in DC.
- It's an "investment", so it's not like the government is just wasting the money on bridges to nowhere, horse and buggy museums, or the Robert KKK Byrd Memorial Submarine Base and House of Waffles in West Virginia.
- "Revenue" makes it sound like Uncle Sam is spreading around some of the green among "the people".
- It has a short, easy acronym. It will take some of the electorate years to learn to hate "BRI's" as much as many of us now hate "earmarks". By the time enough people figure out that BRI's are nothing more than good ol'-fashioned pork barrel, the Congress will have plenty of time to think of other ways to hide this organized raid on the treasury.
Otherwise, how about "bag", as in the term that the mafia used to use for the payoff money they paid to police and other law enforcement personnel?
Posted by quickjustice | June 13, 2007 12:05 PM
Sow's Ear No. 1
Sow's Ear No. 2
etc.
Or the New York version, http://www.empirecenter.org/albany_oink/2007/02/AlbanyOink.cfm:
D.C. Oink No. 1
D.C. Oink No. 2
etc.
Posted by Rovin | June 13, 2007 12:06 PM
Pelos-a-mark: the deception of taking money (not accounted for or produced by the government) and distributed to non-identifiable entities to justify their existence. (also called an "earmark" in the early 21st century)
Posted by Jay Lewis | June 13, 2007 12:12 PM
"Silk purses?"
Posted by always right | June 13, 2007 12:12 PM
Please tell me nobody's really surprised by this. For those turned to Dems to solve their life's problems, heeeeeerrrrrreeee comes Nancy!
Yo, middle America, had enough?
Posted by richardb | June 13, 2007 12:13 PM
Soprano Gift Cards
Pelosi Pinch
NancyJefferson Legislation
Posted by redherkey | June 13, 2007 12:17 PM
Pigtails?
Hogmarks?
Porkears?
Posted by Kane Rogers | June 13, 2007 12:21 PM
I suggest using labels readily at hand in the form of Democrats' names. An earmark could from now on be referred to as a "Pelosi". They want to own the House, let them own the business that gets done there.
Posted by David | June 13, 2007 12:26 PM
Not earmarks?
How about butt tracks, or maybe asswipes.
Posted by jrman | June 13, 2007 12:27 PM
My entries:
Inconvenient truths
indescretionary funds
Charlotte’s line items (as in "some pig")
Tax Cut Dissipaters
Frequent Voter No Hassle Rewards
Posted by AnonymousDrivel | June 13, 2007 12:28 PM
Timely House Endorsed Payments Hidden from Taxpayers
THEPHT
Pronounced: 'theft
Posted by Jimmie | June 13, 2007 12:30 PM
Voter Service Rewards
Posted by Kane Rogers | June 13, 2007 12:30 PM
Other possibilities include "Reid", "Kennedy", and "Schumer". "Feinstein" could denote a grant or provision that favors a spouse's business. Of course, no list of earmark nomenclature would be complete without a "Murtha"!
Posted by mikeyslaw | June 13, 2007 12:32 PM
Call them "Thanksnancies".
Posted by redleg | June 13, 2007 12:33 PM
Call them
BACON BITS
Posted by curtvm | June 13, 2007 12:34 PM
Bambi Bucket (cousin of pork barrel, Nancy P is bambi)
usage-
Bambi Bucket Spending
they reached into the Bambi Bucket for that project
earmarks could become-
DoeMarks (little bambi) or DoughMarks (moolah)
what did I win again, some book or something?
Posted by rbj | June 13, 2007 12:36 PM
Vote Bribes
(bribe other lawmakers to vote your way, and also to bribe the hometown voters to keep reelecting you)
PIE
(Pelosi Incumbent Enhancements, and who doesn't like pie)
and
Stealing of Taxpayer Dollars? STDs?
Posted by bebula | June 13, 2007 12:42 PM
"gift bags"
Posted by bebula | June 13, 2007 12:43 PM
"booty"
Posted by Ostar | June 13, 2007 12:46 PM
How about using both names: "Obey Pelosi" or an "OP".
Posted by arb | June 13, 2007 12:46 PM
Shenaniganzas
(Somewhere up there, Stubby Kaye is smiling)
Posted by David | June 13, 2007 12:49 PM
How about "pig food"
Posted by brainy435![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/nav-commenters.gif)
| June 13, 2007 12:50 PM
"'Why don't we just leave this room today forgetting the word 'earmark'?" suggested Pelosi. "This is a way for . . . members to come together, sometimes in a bipartisan way, to have the Congress of the United States determine some of what is in the appropriations bills instead of just leaving it up to the White House.'"
There's only one choice after this babbling:
Party favors.
Posted by Al in St. Lou | June 13, 2007 12:50 PM
"Government guano" is what comes to mind first. (I haven't looked at the comments yet.)
I've probably used too many syllables. "Pork" is one syllable, and "earmark" is only two. So, it needs to short.
Posted by Rodney | June 13, 2007 12:51 PM
earmarks = demfarks.
Posted by MNHawk | June 13, 2007 12:52 PM
Being true to my Iowa roots, and in dedication to fine Politician Named Ag Research Centers scattered everywhere...
Pelosi Patties
Posted by Randy | June 13, 2007 12:55 PM
How about
Tearmarks
Posted by hermie | June 13, 2007 12:58 PM
"Candygram"
The last thing you hear before the 'Land Shark' devours you.
Posted by Gwedd | June 13, 2007 12:59 PM
Comrades,
Well, since these bills are all about th gravy, why don't we refer to the earmarks as "drippings". After all, that's what the best gravies are made from.....
A bill, plus all the drippings... heh...
respects,
Posted by hermie | June 13, 2007 1:08 PM
"Sausages"
If you saw what went into them, you'd probably be sick.
Posted by Tim'nNY | June 13, 2007 1:09 PM
Call them Frearsons. We're screwed
Posted by always right | June 13, 2007 1:12 PM
My entry -
"Dude, your due."
"Natural order of things"
Posted by The Mechanical Eye | June 13, 2007 1:12 PM
Swag?
Re-election Insurance?
Or maybe I should follow the general style of the rest of the comments:
Pork loins? Pork loans?
"Anybody here smell bacon?" "I definitely smell a pork product of some type."
DU
Posted by patrick neid | June 13, 2007 1:16 PM
sit down. i know that this is going to surprise you..........
"Presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) has secured more earmarks in the fiscal 2008 defense authorization bill than any other Democrat except for panel Chairman Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.)........Clinton received 26 earmarks worth about $148.4 million total, most of which were also sought by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.). Clinton and Schumer agreed several years ago to go after projects together, according to several sources.
While Schumer has more seniority, Clinton has much higher name recognition and committee membership, which makes her better positioned to deliver projects for the state.
According to the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense, Clinton has secured 360 earmarks worth a combined $2.2 billion from 2002 to 2006 in all spending and authorization bills.
“She has learned how to play the game and to use her power on the committee to bring home dollars for her constituents,” said Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense. “She knows how to toot her own horn with the constituents, and that will likely play into her national campaigns.”
Ellis added that Clinton “micro-targets” her press releases to “seem part of the community.” Through these personal, localized messages, she can build political capital, he added.
http://tinyurl.com/2tgdbb
she'll be dusting off that pink dress soon..........
Posted by Adjoran | June 13, 2007 1:25 PM
In keeping with recent past Democratic symbol-mongering, earmarks shall henceforth and forever be known as:
"Child Protection Enhancements"
Hey, who do you think actually GOES to those Railroad Museums and Anti-Zionist Puppet Theatres anyway?
Why, it's the chiiiiiiiildren, of course. What sort of mean-spirited evil person would put America's children in harm's way by denying their right to subsidize California Almond-growers' marketing or Muslim foot basins in Minnesota universities?
"Because when it comes to protecting children, we put your money where our bread is buttered."
Posted by PhilJ | June 13, 2007 1:29 PM
While trying to keep the reference to the pigs, I suggest Spending Large On Pet Projects. Otherwise known as "Slopp" (pronounced as slop).
Posted by jrod | June 13, 2007 1:31 PM
Call them an Obeyance. The Hon Obey was rather grating on C Span last night, glad I don't have him as a Rep.
Posted by Paul in NJ | June 13, 2007 1:31 PM
I suggest:
Community Reinvestment APpropriations
"Rep. Obey, with all respect, my CRAP is vital to my constituents!"
Posted by Paul in NJ | June 13, 2007 1:34 PM
If I may revise and extend that remark: imagine your Congressman pleading that "My constituents need this CRAP!"
Posted by quietman | June 13, 2007 1:38 PM
Invisible thumb prints
Posted by Bruce Armstrong | June 13, 2007 1:38 PM
In keeping with the bureaucratic mindset...
Specially Oriented Funding Assignments (SOFAs)
Posted by Andrew | June 13, 2007 1:43 PM
How About:
Realocated Public Donations, or ReaP Do, (pronounced reap dough)
Managed, Comunal Donations, or MaC. Do, (pronounced make dough)
Posted by Dave | June 13, 2007 1:45 PM
Let's just call it what it is: BRIBERY
Posted by Jon Prichard | June 13, 2007 1:46 PM
Any new name should be benign, innocuous and nauseatingly cute. And in keeping with the long-held tradition of hiding behind the children while inflating the national budget with useless puffs of air...
Let's just call them FLUFFIES
Posted by Keemo | June 13, 2007 1:47 PM
My entry:
Riding the Snake...
Posted by SSG Fuzzy | June 13, 2007 1:51 PM
- How about "pig food"
- Posted by: David at June 13, 2007 12:49 PM
More properly known as “slop”
Posted by kalel666 | June 13, 2007 1:52 PM
To paraphrase Dave Attell: Pizza-Puppies-Santa Claus, because nobody doesn't like one of those things.
Posted by Ron | June 13, 2007 1:53 PM
Paying off a bribe
Posted by Robin Munn | June 13, 2007 1:58 PM
Darn, Jay Lewis beat me to the "silk purses" suggestion.
Well, consider this another vote for "silk purses".
Posted by Mark Shanks | June 13, 2007 2:01 PM
Let's call it what is is:
Politician Directed Corruption
...or in the words of the late Senator Plunkitt of Tammany Hall:
Honest Graft.
Posted by ketchikan | June 13, 2007 2:09 PM
How 'bout "rosey manure"?
Posted by richard mcenroe | June 13, 2007 2:11 PM
They're little bits of pork.
Call them rashers.
Posted by onlineanalyst | June 13, 2007 2:12 PM
Nanny's Sugar Tits?
Posted by La Mano | June 13, 2007 2:18 PM
(TAGS) Thieves Appropriated Government Spending
(CRAP) Cons Recreated As Politicians
(PIGS) Political Insurance Government Spending
(WEEDS) (as in, 'growing like') Washington's Ever Expanding Democratic Subversion
Posted by quickjustice | June 13, 2007 2:21 PM
Simplifying my earlier entry, "Oinks", "squeals", "snorts", "Babybacks", "Sowbellies", or "hogwash".
Posted by Joe Doe | June 13, 2007 2:22 PM
"Though Obey estimates that such spending accounts for less than 2 percent of the bills' combined tab of $955 billion..."
Yes, and my tax contribution is only 0.000000001% contribution, so I should get a tax amnesty as it does not really make any difference to the total.
Posted by Mutt | June 13, 2007 2:23 PM
1. handling charges
2. TT&L (Tithes, Tributes and Levies)
3. Sin Tax
Posted by mayfrog1 | June 13, 2007 2:23 PM
Waxjobs?
Posted by erpichtauf | June 13, 2007 2:29 PM
The price of progress?
Posted by bharry | June 13, 2007 2:31 PM
Since it threatens to derail counter terrorism funding let's call it Collateral Spamage.
Posted by Chaz | June 13, 2007 2:32 PM
How about "Hidemark" or 'Hidden mark"
Posted by dave rywall | June 13, 2007 2:37 PM
How about...
TROUGHLES
(pronounced troffles, as in truffles)
Posted by DocRogers | June 13, 2007 2:38 PM
How about No-See-Ums since thats what they intend anyway.
Posted by Don Singleton | June 13, 2007 2:40 PM
Call them "Obey" me and waste money on this
Posted by David Chance | June 13, 2007 2:50 PM
Return on Investments
No lobbyist or fat cat gives to a congresscritter without expecting something in return.
Posted by onlineanalyst | June 13, 2007 2:52 PM
FAT: Fiscally Arbitrary Tumescence
3-M: Murtha's Mad Money
Byrd Feed
Posted by onlineanalyst | June 13, 2007 2:55 PM
BS: Bipartisan Shellgame
Obey Dough Pay
Posted by Cindi | June 13, 2007 2:58 PM
WRAL - (pronounced rall)
Wealth Redistribution At Large
Posted by david | June 13, 2007 3:00 PM
oh, oh, oh, I like booty, but I prefer the term SWAG: Serious Waste of American Gold
Posted by onlineanalyst | June 13, 2007 3:06 PM
San Francisco Treats
(Oh, that's taken already?)
Posted by arb | June 13, 2007 3:07 PM
Snausages
(Dems don't know it's not bacon)
Posted by crimsonjoe | June 13, 2007 3:10 PM
"This thing we do" [/Sopranos]
Posted by hermie | June 13, 2007 3:22 PM
"Everclears"
They all manage to clear committee..
You don't know what's in it since they mix in everything noxious they can find...
You don't know the damage that's been done until somebody tells you later...
You either get sick or hungover after having too much of the stuff...
Posted by vnjagvet | June 13, 2007 3:26 PM
Pork Rinds.
Posted by Rusty Bill | June 13, 2007 3:46 PM
Specifically Procured Actuarial Modification, a.k.a. SPAM. But I think "bribes" is more accurate...
Posted by PointyHairedBoss | June 13, 2007 3:57 PM
Really Inane Projects Ordained Free From Scrutiny
(Ripoffs)
Posted by jon | June 13, 2007 3:58 PM
Supplemental Treasury Appropriations Politicians Like Escorting
or STAPLE
We've got to allow for the staples Americans need!
Posted by MikeG | June 13, 2007 4:04 PM
"Sooie"
as in "Woo pig sooie!"
Posted by Eg | June 13, 2007 4:11 PM
Pig-ears.
The Other Green Meat.
Posted by Salamantis | June 13, 2007 4:13 PM
Today, House Speaker Pelosi suggested that we should ban the term 'sow's earmarks', and substitute the term "silk disbursements'.
Posted by AnotherOpinion | June 13, 2007 4:23 PM
NAPPY = Never A Politician's Personal Yield.
Used to indicate that politicians profit in one form or another by them in an Orwelian sense, the childishness and immaturity of our leaders putting self interest before the good of the country (time for a nappy), and (to create outrage) the whoring of high officials for votes (nappy headed ****).
Posted by SeniorD | June 13, 2007 4:26 PM
Why not call it what the overpaid, underworked politicos call it:
'Our money'
or
'Serfs tribute'
or
'We Can Spend Your Money Better and Faster Than You Can' (WCSYMBAFTYC) pronounced 'Our Money'
Posted by samharker | June 13, 2007 4:26 PM
Baksheesh.
Posted by Todd G | June 13, 2007 4:29 PM
1. Rose Food
2. Congressionally Restricted Actuarial Markers (CRAM)
3. Congressional Resource Allocation Protection (CRAP)
4. House Allocation of Resource Management (HARM)
5. Member Protection and Financing Tool
Posted by Dugger SD | June 13, 2007 4:30 PM
Political
Orders
Requested by
Kongressmen
Posted by quickjustice | June 13, 2007 4:35 PM
From the University of Arkansas website:
Hog Call Cheer
Woooooooooo, Pig ! Sooie!
Woooooooooo, Pig ! Sooie!
Woooooooooo, Pig ! Sooie!
Razorbacks!!
Posted by Jim Taylor | June 13, 2007 4:39 PM
How about Pigear Marks or sory about this one "Pelisi's Privates"
Posted by John_N | June 13, 2007 4:42 PM
There's an old expression "putting lipstick on a pig" that seems to fit here.
Call these 'lipstick'.
Posted by oINKoink | June 13, 2007 4:48 PM
how about "pork barrel pinata"
Posted by LA | June 13, 2007 4:56 PM
My favorites so far:
Really Inane Projects Ordained Free From Scrutiny (Ripoffs), by PointyHairedBoss
and
'lipstick,' by John_N
Both are apt, catchy and easy!
Posted by KW64 | June 13, 2007 5:00 PM
How about "Nancy's Secrets" (a play off Victoria's Secret, which is also naughty). For short we can just call them "Nancys"
Posted by Larry Patty | June 13, 2007 5:11 PM
How about Pelosi's pork chops?
Posted by ManlyDad | June 13, 2007 5:24 PM
Porcine Gifts.
Pig Marks.
Tax Souee!
Posted by Aaron Converse | June 13, 2007 5:44 PM
OK...what about "Nanlets"? A nice combo of 'piglet' and you-know-who...
Posted by arb | June 13, 2007 6:48 PM
BUCCs
(Bribe Used to Corral Congressperson)
Posted by onlineanalyst | June 13, 2007 6:54 PM
BS: Bipartisan Swill
Bipartisan Shellgame
Posted by Only_One_Cannoli | June 13, 2007 7:17 PM
mm, "concealed," "... and also make it more difficult to root them out" ... hmm, something expensive with a pork (and democrat) connection ...
DONKEY TRUFFLES !
Posted by Axel Kassel | June 13, 2007 7:18 PM
Shadow Plunder.
Posted by ordi | June 13, 2007 7:46 PM
1) Pelosi's Payola
2) Democrat Dollars
3) Pelosi's Pesos
4) Bipartisan Bread
5) "Jack's"Pot or "Pelosi's"Pot
6) Democrat Dinero
7) Democrat Dough
8) Pelosi's Purse
Posted by reliapundit | June 13, 2007 7:58 PM
swag
porkola
tips ( to insure political survival)
sneaky-snacks
tax tag-ons
supremiums
Posted by Kevin | June 13, 2007 8:27 PM
"Entitlements"
Fits the bill pretty well.
Posted by Cousin It | June 13, 2007 8:32 PM
Obey to Congressman; "Congressman, I just can't take any more CRAP from you! Your district has been given all the CRAP it's going to get this cycle. So take your CRAP to someone who gives a CRAP".
Posted by Ted | June 13, 2007 8:36 PM
Skidmarks.
Seems self-explanatory to me.
Posted by Al | June 13, 2007 8:44 PM
Porkbellies.
Politicos think that they are bringing home the bacon, but what they are actually bringing home is full of fat and will eventually kill.
Posted by Neil | June 13, 2007 9:13 PM
elosipay oneymay?
Posted by Brandon | June 13, 2007 9:24 PM
I Got it,
"No Child Left Behind-ments"
That way if you oppose them, you're against children and families and such.
Posted by Brandon Comer | June 13, 2007 9:29 PM
I Got it,
"No Child Left Behind-ments"
That way if you oppose them, you're against children and families and such.
Posted by hunter | June 13, 2007 10:06 PM
pig bits
pig bites
pig candy
pork rinds
pork fritters
Posted by Michael Brown | June 13, 2007 10:10 PM
How about " Screw them, let them eat cake. We know what's best for our re-election chances, and we'll be damed if a bunch of patriotic citizens are going to stand in our way. We rule, they obey!"
Posted by Bryan | June 13, 2007 10:22 PM
"Marks of the Beast"?
Posted by LT.Rob | June 13, 2007 11:17 PM
Ototags
Divvyaways
Cuddlebudget Items
Security Fence Allocations
Taxsavers
Taxreliefs
I do think that CRAP is always useful (I personally own lots of it) but I believe it stands for Community Reinvestment Allocation Procurements. Not only does every congressional district and state need more CRAP, but all revenue bills are so full of CRAP when written that a little more won't make a difference.
Posted by Patrick McHargue | June 13, 2007 11:46 PM
The New Name Is... "Health Children!"
An easy sell, and makes for a great press conference...
Cameras, "*Whir*, !Click!"
Rep. Bloater, smiling broadly, "I want everyone to know that we have lots of 'Healthy Children!' coming to our state."
Reporters faint from joy.
(audience clutches wallets)
Posted by La Mano | June 14, 2007 12:37 AM
SWINEOLA ...... yup, the combination of the pork family, swine, and payola. Can be used like, "I regretfully must say that the distinguished Senator from the fine state of Maryland doesn't know sh!t from swineola".
Posted by PS | June 14, 2007 1:20 AM
Happy ponies. it seems so cute and cuddly, just like Madam Pelosi.
Posted by BB | June 14, 2007 3:04 AM
Butt Bites. You know, as in biting the rears of the American people, right? Is anyone there...?
Posted by JM Hanes | June 14, 2007 4:36 AM
Honey Dues
Posted by Linda F | June 14, 2007 5:56 AM
They are Political Persuation - PP, for short.
Since they are only 2 % of any given bill, I think we should honor that with the name
Twopys - pronounced "2 PEES"
Posted by HA | June 14, 2007 6:10 AM
I suggest "Rice-A-Roni" - the San Franciso treat!
Or perhaps the "Johnstown Flood" in honor of Jack Murtha who I believe represents Johnstown PA.
I also have a new name for congressional culture since the Democrats took over. They have replaced the "Culture of Corruption" with the "Orgy of Corruption". Because only an orgy will satisfy the San Franciso Democrats!
Posted by Tony | June 14, 2007 11:57 AM
How about just plain old "Pelosis" in honor of the granny who suggested the name change.
Posted by Tony | June 14, 2007 11:59 AM
Better yet, "pelositories" (a combination of Pelosi and suppositories). They're inserted in the "back end" of the bill process, and they're stuck up our collective a**es.