Earmarks

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

Earmarks

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

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Earmarks

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Earmarks - 3/4/2011 6:54:25 AM

DarkSteven

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

I've been thinking about earmarks. The GOP had vowed to ban them, but that vow was stillborn. At the time, some Congresspeople were saying "That's how things are DONE", and there were some statistics showing that the earmarks themselves constitute a small percentage of overall funding. Also, there was concern that earmarks are the way that Congress ensures that the rights of its constituents are met, while the President doesn't care about individual states.

Which makes me all the more sad that an earmark ban didn't hold.

Let me give you an example. Suppose I have a bill that I want to get passed, and I need the votes of Senators Sanity and DomYngBlk. They both hate the bill, and the only way I can get it passed is to sweeten it with a munitions manufacturing facility in Sanity's state and a federally funded recycling facility in DYB's state. The cost of the bill is NOT the two facilities, it's the cost of THE BILL ITSELF. It would never have passed without the sweeteners.

If there were no earmarks, then Congresspeople would be forced to vote for/against bills on their own merits. According to how their constituents felt. That would mean a combination of polling constituents and speaking to them and swaying their opinions. In a word, dialogue. Force them to worry less about Washington and more about home turf. Be representative.

I wish that earmarks HAD been abolished.

_____________________________

"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."

Profile

Post #: 1

RE: Earmarks - 3/4/2011 10:38:20 AM

hlen5

Posts: 5890
Joined: 3/2/2008
Status: offline

I agree.

_____________________________

My fave Thread: http://www.collarchat.com/m_2626198/mpage_1/tm.htm

One time "Phallus Expert Extraordinaire"

(in reply to DarkSteven)

Profile

Post #: 2

RE: Earmarks - 3/4/2011 12:50:11 PM

rulemylife

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

Earmarks get a lot of attention from the media because some of the projects are pretty stupid, but many others are worthwhile.

They also get a lot of attention from grandstanding politicians but they really are a tiny part of the budget.

(CNSNews.com) - Whether you use the Office of Management and Budget’s earmark numbers or Citizens Against Government Waste’s earmark numbers, eliminating 100 percent of earmarks in fiscal 2010 would have cut the federal budget by less than one-half of one percent.

(Eliminating 100 Percent of Earmarks)

(in reply to DarkSteven)

Profile

Post #: 3

RE: Earmarks - 3/4/2011 12:57:31 PM

truckinslave

Posts: 3897
Joined: 6/16/2004
Status: offline

I was all for the ban until I heard M McConnell (sic) defend earmarks. According to him, the monies are already budgeted; earmarks simply turn how/where exactly to spend the money from an executive/bureaucratic decision into a legislative one.

I think I'm still for the ban. If the "bridge to nowhere" is the legislative priority, I'm pretty sure I'd be happier with letting the DOT allocate the money. But I don't think the issue is as clearcut as I once did.

_____________________________

1. Islam and sharia are indivisible.
2. Sharia is barbaric, homophobic, violent, and inimical to the most basic Western values (including free speech and freedom of religion). (Yeah, I know: SEE: Irony 101).
ERGO: Islam has no place in America.

(in reply to DarkSteven)

Profile

Post #: 4