The Economist released a new poll by YouGov that asked respondents Voters hate both parties-- the Democrats a few points less than the Republicans. But apparently, the Democrats would like to catch up with the Republicans in the low esteem department-- and before the election. This week,released a new poll by YouGov that asked respondents what they think of both political parties . Among registered voters 46% have a favorable opinion of the Democratic Party and 52% have an unfavorable opinion. The same voters said they have a 44% favorable opinion of the Republican Party and a 54% unfavorable opinion. Not that much different. Sad!





Politico reporters Ally Mutnick and Caitlin Emma wrote up the One of the most corrupt scumbags from either party-- Democratic majority leader Steny Hoyer (80)-- is pushing a plan, along with retiring House Appropriations Chairwoman Nita Lowey (82), to reintroduce, albeit gradually and less toxically (at first), bringing back earmarks. Everyone hates earmarks-- except corrupt politicians.reporters Ally Mutnick and Caitlin Emma wrote up the bare essentials of a potentially explosive story that could send the Democrats right backing the minority. They wrote that the Hoyer-Lowey plan "would allow members to secure cash for some pet projects at home."

There's a growing concern among the political staff to some swing-seat members that this could hurt them in November and undercut their campaign promises of fiscal responsibility. And it comes after the Democratic-led House unsuccessfully attempted to secure a congressional pay raise last year-- another vote which freshmen deemed politically risky.



Members from both parties have long stressed that reinstating earmarks doesn’t have to mean a return to wasteful and highly criticized pork-barrel spending in which federal funds flow to thousands of niche projects.



Instead, they contend that a system with improved controls could help lawmakers better deliver on their districts' needs. President Donald Trump even endorsed a return to earmarks in 2018, saying that it led to “great friendliness” among Republicans and Democrats.



Still, even a watered-down version of earmarks could provide Republicans with all the fodder they need to make biting political ads.



“We’re not going to have a majority if we bring back earmarks,” said a top aide to a freshman Democrat who flipped a GOP-held seat in 2018. “This is not what we came to Congress to do. Voters made it clear years ago that they were tired of pork and special interest spending in Washington and sweetheart deals.”



Advertising spots that aired prior to 2012 often reminded voters that their member of Congress supported the use of taxpayer dollars for pet projects in states hundreds of miles away. And some Democrats who voted in favor of a 2011 earmark ban taped ads touting their work to curb government spending.



...In a letter to fellow lawmakers last February, Lowey announced that “there is currently not the necessary bipartisan, bicameral agreement” to revisit the contentious practice of specifying that federal dollars must go to certain projects.



But the New York Democrat added that legislators in both chambers “must discuss the issue of earmarks in our respective caucuses and conferences to determine member preferences, solicit ideas to ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely, and when applicable, change rules to permit members to request earmarks.”

I spoke with two young women, both progressive reformers-- whose campaigns revolt around very anti-corruption messaging-- how they took the news about Hoyer trying to resuscitate earmarks. Mckayla Wilkes is running for the suburban south Maryland seat occupied by Hoyer. She told me that "House Democratic leadership considering a return to earmarks flies in the face of what Democratic voters have been calling out for: no more back room deals, no more influence peddling, no more payoffs. A return to earmarks threatens vulnerable freshman members, who must then explain to their progressive constituents why the party is returning to this corrupt practice. Steny Hoyer has been notoriously shifty in his efforts to maintain a moderate majority in the House. We all remember the notorious call to Levi Tillemann where Hoyer encouraged him to drop out in favor of the more moderate DCCC backed candidate. Not to mention Hoyer’s DCCC blacklist, which cuts off DCCC business to any consultants working on behalf of a primary challenger. This shady tactic serves to prevent dissenting progressive voices like mine from having the tools, staff, data, comms and fundraising needed to compete against incumbents. If it wasn’t for grassroots donations of money, talent, and time, I would be unable to compete, and Hoyer’s sleazy tactics would be successful. We as a party can’t let this continue."





Rachel Ventura's suburban and small town district is west of Chicago and she's also running against a corrupt conservative, New Dem Bill Foster. Rachel told me that "We must have a government and economy that works for everyone. Earmarks further corruption and special interests. Instead we need to use our tax dollars to help close the wealth gap through a federal jobs guarantee, living wage jobs, and infrastructure investments all across this country. Passing the Green New Deal ensures our dollars ARE going back to our communities to help everyone, not just a few pet projects. We need to pass policies that help everyone like Medicare for All and as your next congresswoman of IL-11, I plan to push for these two bills my first term in office."



