FACT check: Ban on earmarks is mostly symbolic

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

FACT check: Ban on earmarks is mostly symbolic

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> FACT check: Ban on earmarks is mostly symbolic

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

FACT check: Ban on earmarks is mostly symbolic - 11/19/2010 4:42:07 PM

rulemylife

Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline

Fact check: Ban on earmarks is mostly symbolic

WASHINGTON – Despite their claims, the Republicans' ban on earmarks won't stop lawmakers from steering taxpayers' dollars to pet projects.

And it will have little if any effect on Washington's far graver problem — the gigantic budget deficit.

Saying Election Day victories gave them a mandate to curb spending, Republicans formally agreed last week to a two-year prohibition of earmarks, legislative provisions that funnel money to lawmakers' favorite projects.

....Even completely eliminating earmarks would hardly ensure that spending decisions will be objective and divorced from politics. Presidents and agency officials control where many federal dollars go and have always used that power to reward allies. And formulas that automatically disburse other funds to states are themselves products of past political compromises, with their own sets of winners and losers.

"It makes those who ranted and raved against earmarks feel good," Robert Reischauer, the Urban Institute president and former chief of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, said of the GOP ban. "But it is largely cosmetic."

Profile

Post #: 1

RE: FACT check: Ban on earmarks is mostly symbolic - 11/19/2010 5:03:41 PM

housesub4you

Posts: 1879
Joined: 4/2/2008
Status: offline

Yea thios was pointed out in other posts, but since it makes the GOP look bad no one brings it up

(in reply to rulemylife)

Profile

Post #: 2

RE: FACT check: Ban on earmarks is mostly symbolic - 11/19/2010 5:10:51 PM

KenDckey

Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline

Yeah I think OMB said it is like only 1% of the budget but 1% is 1% :)

(in reply to housesub4you)

Profile

Post #: 3

RE: FACT check: Ban on earmarks is mostly symbolic - 11/19/2010 5:13:56 PM

stef

Posts: 10215
Joined: 1/26/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: housesub4you

Yea this was pointed out in other posts, but since it makes the GOP look bad no one brings it up

Statements like this make the Baby Jesus cry.

~stef

_____________________________

Welcome to PoliticSpace! If you came here expecting meaningful BDSM discussions, boy are you in the wrong place.

"Hypocrisy has consequences"

(in reply to housesub4you)

Profile

Post #: 4

RE: FACT check: Ban on earmarks is mostly symbolic - 11/19/2010 5:14:32 PM

housesub4you

Posts: 1879
Joined: 4/2/2008
Status: offline

The problem, it would not be a law, anyone could opt out, plus most of the earmarks would just be paid for with grants, so they are really not doing anything other then fooling the base who will not go beyond FOX news

(in reply to KenDckey)

Profile

Post #: 5

RE: FACT check: Ban on earmarks is mostly symbolic - 11/19/2010 5:17:41 PM

wittynamehere

Posts: 759
Joined: 2/5/2010
Status: offline

FR

So sad that people think earmarks are a bad thing. All they do is ensure funds are spent correctly. Without earmarks, the same amount is spent - just not necessarily on the right stuff.
I think people hear "earmark" and think "pork barrel spending" or something. Totally different things. Cutting earmarks doesn't cut spending one cent.

_____________________________

I almost never return to a thread, so if you saw my post and want me to hear your reply, please message it to me.

(in reply to housesub4you)

Profile

Post #: 6

RE: FACT check: Ban on earmarks is mostly symbolic - 11/19/2010 6:09:37 PM

KenDckey

Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline

Witty they also don't go thru the normal justification for the expense system. They just materialize in the bill

(in reply to wittynamehere)

Profile

Post #: 7

RE: FACT check: Ban on earmarks is mostly symbolic - 11/19/2010 6:09:46 PM

DarkSteven

Posts: 28072
Joined: 5/2/2008
Status: offline

I disagree that cutting earmarks (if it IS in fact dome) will have a miniscule effect. A lot of legislators were completely clueless about how to act in a post-earmark world. If they could not pass laws that benefited their constituents, what would they do?

Once the idiots realize that they would then be able to benefit the nation as a whole, we'll see some progress.

_____________________________

"You women....

The small-breasted ones want larger breasts. The large-breasted ones want smaller ones. The straight-haired ones curl their hair, and the curly-haired ones straighten theirs...

Quit fretting. We men love you."

(in reply to wittynamehere)

Profile

Post #: 8

RE: FACT check: Ban on earmarks is mostly symbolic - 11/19/2010 6:24:00 PM

DMFParadox

Posts: 1405
Joined: 9/11/2007
Status: offline

This is a good step, in the sense that it registers a change in thinking for lawmakers. Any of them that voted 'yes' for this will be a bit more considering and a trifle more hesitant when opportunities to turn pork into bacon come along.

_____________________________

bloody hell, get me some aspirin and a whiskey straight

"The role of gender in society is the most complicated thing I’ve ever spent a lot of time learning about, and I’ve spent a lot of time learning about quantum mechanics." - Randall Munroe

(in reply to DarkSteven)

Profile

Post #: 9

RE: FACT check: Ban on earmarks is mostly symbolic - 11/19/2010 7:01:45 PM

housesub4you

Posts: 1879
Joined: 4/2/2008
Status: offline

A good Step??? More like good political BS, everything they cut in earmarks can be paid for with grants they approve ANYTIME THEY WANT, PLUS IT IS A NON BINDNG BILL, SO IT'S NON BINDING

(in reply to DMFParadox)

Profile

Post #: 10