Earmark is a bill meant to finance a particular project at a particular location for a given number of taxpayers dollars,a.k.a. prokbarrel spending. The idea of directing federal money to specific local projects came originally from Rep. John Calhoun (D-S.C.) when he proposed the Bonus Bill of 1817 to construct highways linking the East and South of the United States to it's Western frontier.

At the present time it is used equally by politicians of both parties at every opportunity. Earmarking became notorious in 2005 when $223 million was earmarked to construct a bridge nicknamed the "Bridge to Nowhere", to connect an Alaskan town of 8,900 to an island of 50 inhabitants (saving a short ferry ride).

According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, the number of earmarks has grown from fro 4,115 valued at $ 29 billion in 1994 to 14,211 worth $53 billion in 2004.

With the backing of President Bush, Republicans in congress have introduced H.R.4964 The Earmark Control Bill of 2006, sent to committee March 15 2006 and is still waiting for action. Another bill meant to control spending is H.R.4890 The Line Item Veto Act of 2006, supported by most Republicans and few Democrats. Passed by house majority and now waiting for senate action.

The Line Item Veto Act of 1996 was passed by a Republican congress in January of 1996 and signed by President Clinton. It was used frequently by President Clinton to bring about a balanced budget, the first time in many years. Without the line item veto the balanced budget would not have happened. Two years later on June 25, 1998 the U.S. Supreme Court deemed the line item veto to be uncostitutional, putting an end to control of spending.

This item was revived June 22, 2006 as H.R.4890 The Line Item Veto Act of 2006 passed by the house and now waiting for action by the senate. Some provisions of the bill were modified to assure it's constitutionality. The vote was Republicans 212 yeas and 15 nays and Democrats 35 yeas and 156 nays. If the majority in the Senate changes with coming election I doubt it will pass the senate.

One promise made by Mark Kennedy, candidate for U.S. Senate from Minnesota, is to pass the line item veto act. VOTE FOR KENNEDY.

After nearly a year of Medicare Part D, it has proven to be very successful in it's present form. It can easily be improved with increased government funding and more expense to the taxpayers. As it is, intense competition among the fifty or more insurance companies involved give the policyholders the best possible deal, even better than a governmant agency could.

The opposition, i.e. Minnesota Senior Federation and others who have opposed from the start, say that V.A. and other government agencies are getting discounted prices from drug companies but forget to mention that insurance companies are also getting discounts and passing on to the policyholders.

In White Bear Lake Area Senior Voice publication, the Minnesota Senior Federation sez "Many premiums are increasing. The lowest premium in Minnesota in 2006 is $1.87. The lowest premium in Minnesota for 2007 wil be $10.60." As expected, Federation would choose the worst possible example but do not mention the fact that fourteen plans in Minnesota will raise premiums next year , while twenty-four will lower them.

To continue with their usual negative position, Federation also sez "Many of the formularies are changing so that the medications which have been covered under a specific plan may no longer be covered." Federation did not mention that Medicare said Friday that drugs-only plans will cover 13 percent more drugs next year, while Medicare Advantage Plans will cover 10 percent nore drugs.

Ideally, this plan helps most those that have the greatest need for help. With a very low co-pay for those of low income and those that take large amounts of drugs that are catastrophic.

My own personal experience taking seven drugs daily to sustain my 61 year diabetic condition at a cost of $361.o7 monthly, applied to a popular Medicare Advantage policy, would reduce my personal cost to $102.64, a reduction of 74.1%. I can demonstrate that.

AARP has a new T.V. commercial that sez "DON'T VOTE". The purpose is to discourage people from voting until they are well prepared. Taking the Union Advocate newspaper along to the polls to copy what their recomendations are is not being well prepared. Better to decide for yourself. A well informed electorate is more likely to vote Republican.

..."Gov Tim Pawlenty abstained from voting against United Health CEO". Information supposedly gotten from article in Pioneer Press on April 28, 2006. Upon reviewing articles in Pioneer Press archives dated April 28, 2006. I found three articles that mentioned Gov. Pawlenty and not one of them were about CEO of United Health. I also checked Startribune with same results. I would ask Mr. Hatch, since when does the governor get to walk into the legislative chambers and vote yes or no on any issue. That might be his intention if elected.