Ah, so we're totally fucked?

I'm not defending earmarks, but if it's "only" $1 billion, that's only half as a corrupt as the Republicans in 2005.

Democrats: Half as Bad.

Armageddon! FTR approves of something Bush will do!

Seriously, it's an institutional problem with Congress, not a partisan problem. It's too bad Bush had to wait 6+ years and get a Democratic Congress before he turned spending hawk - though his chronic mismanagement of the entire government is part of the problem too.

This is only one bill - or are you thinking of the specific bill for the same departments from then?

Demos, Repubs... 2 sides of the same coin it seems.

I am fond of saying that the only difference between government and organized crime, is that government is bigger, has more hired goons and guns... and is less ethical.

Q. What's the difference between a politician and a catfish?
A. One's a slimey, shit-eating bottom feeder... the other's just a fish.
(yeah... I know the joke's originally about lawyers, but hey)

The majority of these are Republican projects, and it was the Republicans who prevented the Democratic congress from getting porkbelly reform done. So it's not surprising, and it's not the Democrats' fault past complacency and the fact that they're basically sitting on their hands until 2008 when the new President will hopefully be on their party ticket.

I've heard Ron Paul doesn't like earmarks.

Seriously though, as Formus said, they're mostly Republican and its 1/10th of the amount that Bush wants the bill cut back by.
Also, from the article linked:

It isn't like this is really all that uncommon, the only thing that is really despicable is the well-furnished office for himself within the building. Outside of that, libraries, conference centers, and centers for public service aren't exactly bad things.

I am a little perplexed that anyone at all finds all of this earmarking and other bs surprising. I mean, the only real thing in ploitics that is truly bipartisan is the corruption.
While a person might be honest while running for an office, once they can be labeled with the word politician it is pretty much a sure-fire deal that any ethics or morals they may have had are now up for the bidding.

No, but it's shameful to name them after yourself when all you've done is assign the government's money to them.

We would like to think of a politician as a public service, that people run for office because they want to make positive change, but to many it's a career and they will do what it takes to keep their job.

I'd really love to see term limits in legislature, but the only real way that could happen is if they themselves did it. lol@thathappeningever

Yes. Term limits. I recall an election quite a few years ago, in California, where the voters voted IN term limits--and then proceeded to also vote [back] in about 95% of the incumbents. Irony or pure, blatant stupidity?

As I recall, there used to be. Could be wrong. Zarth would fix me.

I personally would not like to see legislative term limits, because that would mean that Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl would be forced to eventually give up their Senate seats to lesser men. And that is a concept that I just cannot go along with. Hell, even Presidential term limits have always been a bit of a shaky concept for me. We should be able to elect who we want. =/

That's actually not a bad campaign slogan. They could win if they went with it.

A check on fiscal irresponsibility from the man responsible for a war that has so far cost an estimated $1.5 trillion, that has (putting aside the morality of the situation for the sake of the argument) resulted in no tangible benefits for anybody other than corporate war-profiteers.

I mean, I think it's good that there's this check on corrupt pork-barrel politics. But holy shit...