L.A. Times Tells You Something Important About Leading Democrats . . . Just in Time For Voters to Do, Uh, Nothing About It
The L.A. Times has a story titled Reid pledges earmark reform, but may benefit:
Incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid vows to make reform of congressional earmarks a priority of his tenure, arguing that members need to be more transparent when they load pet projects for their districts into federal spending bills.
But last year’s huge $286-billion federal transportation bill included a little-noticed slice of pork pushed by Reid that provided benefits not only for the casino town of Laughlin, Nev., but also, possibly, for the senator himself.
It’s not just the Democrat Senate Majority Leader who does this. It’s also the Democrat Speaker of the House:
Reid is not the only powerful member known to use the practice. Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a former appropriations panel member, has used earmarks prodigiously.
Good information to have. Just in time for the . . . week after the election.
And this is a surprise because . . . ?
Dana (3e4784) — 11/13/2006 @ 4:46 amMore on the Alice in Wonderland nature of the LA Times: (Former Times exec) Harry Chandler, in Sunday’s paper, suggests community ownership of the LA Times. “If 20% of Times readers invest $1,000, it could work.” Hmm, let’s see if Harry — or anybody at the Times — actually decided to test that number.
The Times current readership is 3.3 million on Sunday (2.2 million on weekday, but we’ll give Harry the benefit of the doubt.) 3.3 million times 20% times $1,000 equals…$660 million.
Yet the Wall Street Journal, in its Friday edition, estimated the LA Times’ value at $2 billion. (By was of comparison, the much smaller and more fiscally distressed Philly Inquirer/Daily News sold for $515 million earlier this year).
Even if the WSJ estimate is wrong by half, that still leaves old Harry short $340 million.
Reformed Journalist (08ce8f) — 11/13/2006 @ 7:36 amSeeing as though Chandler can’t see the math error — and no one at the Times thought through it either — is it any surprise that the Times is in the mess that it is in?
The Smell A Times more from the west coasts version of the New York Times and just as bad a paper that even a vulture would,nt want in his cage
krazy kagu (24c038) — 11/13/2006 @ 7:55 ami think the timing was perfect 🙂
assistant devil's advocate (efb338) — 11/13/2006 @ 8:12 amall members of congress seek pork for their constituencies, not just reid and pelosi.
@reformed journalist:
the article i read said ron burkle and eli broad, one one hand, were going against david geffen to buy the paper. these guys are billionaires, and an army of rubes paying $1000 each to join will not likely prevail in this class. i don’t think you can find 330,000 people in los angeles willing to pay $1000 for this crackpipe fantasy anyway.
Think the nutroots know?
algone (6fba4c) — 11/13/2006 @ 11:24 am[…] tip: Patterico via Porkbusters Posted By: Sister Toldjah in: Congress | EMail This Post | Print This Post | Trackback URI for this post:http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2006/11/13/dems-want-to-identify-pork-sponsors/trackback/ » […]
Sister Toldjah » Dems want to identify pork sponsors (1466f5) — 11/13/2006 @ 12:11 pmThe best part will come later, when the Times defends itself against charges of bias, by pointing to this belated story as hard-hitting coverage of the Democrats.
Too late (203ce5) — 11/13/2006 @ 3:10 pm[…] I believed I previously mentioned my future reaction to anyone using the LA times to bash the right. They also point out the faults of the left, but only after elections… […]
LA Times does it again! « Something should go here, maybe later. (71c0e9) — 11/14/2006 @ 12:51 pm