-
Deceived re: earmarks
I feel somewhat deceived about earmarks. I have been led to believe that earmarks increase government spending. According to Ron Paul and Bob Bennet, however, earmarks simply direct money that has already been allocated by the government. If this is true, then earmarks are not to blame for wasteful spending.
-
20 Replies
-
An earmark for tattoo removal is not wasteful spending?
-
Depends how drunk you were.
-
Bull.
Congress determines how much it is going to spend before deciding on earmarks. But they increase the level of spending [i]specifically[/i] so they can include their earmarks. I know this from personal experience when I worked on Capitol Hill. If they needed more earmarks, they would just allocate more money. It is the american way.
-
Whew! Thanks for clarifying, MISTRAD. I had my world turned upside down there for a second.
Earmarks are wasteful. Got it.
-
They are more than wasteful. Earmarks are also corruptive. They are the easiest way for Congressman to get money through without debate. If you had a lobbyist come to you and say they need money for something, it is much easier to get an earmark put it then to have to debate a resolution on the floor. That is just bad policy.
-
Earmarks. Just another fancy name fro pet projects or purchased influence. This is the game they all play to supposedly help their constituants. BS.
-
Earmarks have both a positive side and a negative side. On the positive side, it allows politicians to fund projects that are important to their districts. In some cases these may be good projects. On the negative side it is a corruptive form of “bipartisan” government and part of the horse trading that normally goes on. It is not a far stretch to think that the majority party can negotiate to allow selected minority party members to insert their earmarks in a bill, with the quid pro quo that those members votes for that bill, or promises to side with the majority on a future pet bill.
-
Earmarks are not as bad as projected by some politicians. Every complex thing has some amount of waste. Complex law has loop holes, big grocery store has to discard more rotten vegitables, etc. Even in health care waste is unavoidable due to complexity. The list goes on and on. I think that most of earmarks are good. I think that famous 3million dollar projection for a Chicago museum is an excellent earmark (Although Mccain thought otherwise).
In a way, ability to pull one or more of opposition party members to vote for something is very positive. Otherwise, the govt can do anything constructive. Especially now, when republicans gang up to block any idea that will help economy. They want obama to fail, so that someone from them can get back into white house in 2012.
-
I wouldn’t mind as much if each politician clearly had a certain amount of money allocated to them so they could earmark. But what happens is the most entrenched (and often most corrupt) politicians have a disproportionate influence on spending. This is true of both Dems and Repubs. Mitch Mcconnell, I believe, had $75 million in earmarks, so he has no right complain.
-
The interesting part is they put in their earmarks, then vote against the bill. A little have your cake and eat it too
-
Interesting read and data on earmarks:
[link=http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/hjackson/Earmarks_16.pdf]http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/hjackson/Earmarks_16.pdf[/link]
Although total number of earmarks is increasing, the percentage of federal spending due to earmarks remains about 2%
This chart extends the data out 3 more years…
[link=http://www.flickr.com/photos/robbluey/2215075689/]http://www.flickr.com/photos/robbluey/2215075689/[/link]
-
They are all corrupt. This is not just Dems…Repubs are as well. It is a pathetic system.
-
I would like to see the system that I think Obama mentioned. Have earmarks as part of the budget. Each area (either by geography or type of expenditure) would get set amount. Then the members would have to duke it out for what projects get funded.
-
Yes, I think that is the best compromise. That way, the Congress decides what amount is legitimate up front. Dedicated spending is not inherently bad, but the earmark system is corrupt.
-
Duke it out for what is valid. Wake up the good old boy system is whats in place. You help me get my pet project and I help you.
This does not work and we keep doing it.
Sure the ear mark % is relatively the same. 2% of 10 billion is quite different from 2% of 10 trillion.
Complain about fee reductions. But lets keep the earmark system in place. -
Republicans reverse their ban on earmarks …
this came shortly after:
Im perfectly willing to divide it equally between Republicans and Democrats, and so it will be up to them if they want it. If they dont, well just have it on the Democratic side. But I think enough of them would like to have it on both sides.Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), as quoted by [link=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-16/biden-s-next-big-bill-is-tied-to-gop-call-on-spending-earmarks?sref=a2d7LMhq]Bloomberg[/link], on what will happen with earmarks if Republicans choose not to engage with the appropriations process
-
So the democrats and republicans have decided that it is mutually beneficial to bring back the old corruption. Bring back the ability of congressmen to kick some money back to their supporters and suddenly ‘bipartisanship’ is back on the table.
Lol.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
[link=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/gop-re-embraces-earmarks-signaling-end-old-fiscal-tenets-n1261386]First Read[/link]: [b]The era of small government is over. And its been over for a while now.[/b]
[b]
[/b]
Thats the undeniable conclusion after House Republicans in a secret-ballot vote on Wednesday reversed their ban on earmarks for projects in spending bills that end up benefitting their congressional districts.
This GOP reversal on earmarks comes after congressional Republicans voted for trillions in spending to combat the coronavirus during the Trump presidency (though not during the Biden presidency), after Trump himself continues to support $2,000 stimulus checks, and after the GOP has essentially stopped messaging against Bidens Covid-19 relief package.
-
Mythology dies hard like supply-side trickle-down tax cuts increasing government revenue beliefs. Seems Republicans are capable of believing any kind of BS, not matter how obviously BS they are.
Pizza parlor child porn rings anyone? On Mars? Run by shape-shifting lizard people? Stolen election? Masks do not work against COVID, they are just a ploy for government control?
It all sounds more than plausible to them.-
[b]Republican Appetite for Earmarks Grows[/b][/h1]
[link=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/05/us/politics/gop-federal-spending.html]New York Times[/link]: Even as Republicans, newly empowered after taking control of the House, call for deep government spending cuts and accuse Democrats of profligacy with taxpayer dollars, a growing number of them have joined Democrats in helping themselves to larger amounts of cash for their states and districts in the form of earmarks now rebranded as community project funding that allow lawmakers to direct federal money to pet projects.
A review by [i]The New York Times[/i] of the nearly $16 billion in earmarks included in the $1.7 trillion spending law enacted in December more than 7,200 projects in all revealed that earmarks requested by members of both parties skyrocketed over the last year. And while Democrats secured a greater amount of spending on pet projects overall than Republicans did, the increase in G.O.P. earmarks since last spring was larger.
-
-
