We hear about them. They're obviously a political hot potato.

 

However, are they always bad?

 

For example, Lindsay Graham from SC has an earmark for about $1M for a convention center in Myrtle Beach. He says they're trying to diversify the economy and trying to make Myrtle Beach an international destination.

 

Is that bad? Is it a good investment?

 

Is the BOK Arena the result of an earmark?

We hear about them. They're obviously a political hot potato.

 

However, are they always bad?

 

For example, Lindsay Graham from SC has an earmark for about $1M for a convention center in Myrtle Beach. He says they're trying to diversify the economy and trying to make Myrtle Beach an international destination.

 

Is that bad? Is it a good investment?

 

Is the BOK Arena the result of an earmark?

No problem with it and kudos if the PEOPLE OF SOUTH CAROLINA WANT TO BUILD IT!!!!!!!!

 

Obama went on about the SC school systems and how they needed to get money to them.

 

NO, the SOUTH CAROLINA PEOPLE need to provide for their schools.

 

It is not our responsibility in KY to pay for pig odor research in Iowa/Utah. Or for a tatoo removal machine in Los Angeles for gang members to have their gang tatoos removed. Or for genetic mapping of catfish in Alabama. Or the genetic mapping of grapes.

 

All might be wonderful things that need to be done and paid for by the industries or states that they benefit but not the federal government's responsibility.

Well said

KY Republican Mitch McConnell ran his campaign on earmarks and what he had got for Kentucky. He is still pulling in the dollars. (latest figure from the current legislation is around 75 million)

 

The earmarks McConnell asked for in the current omnibus include $950,000 for the Western Kentucky University bikeway project, $427,000 for the Gunpowder Creek trail in Boone County and $1.6 million for the Forage Animal Production Research Laboratory in Lexington

No problem with it and kudos if the PEOPLE OF SOUTH CAROLINA WANT TO BUILD IT!!!!!!!!

 

Obama went on about the SC school systems and how they needed to get money to them.

 

NO, the SOUTH CAROLINA PEOPLE need to provide for their schools.

 

It is not our responsibility in KY to pay for pig odor research in Iowa/Utah. Or for a tatoo removal machine in Los Angeles for gang members to have their gang tatoos removed. Or for genetic mapping of catfish in Alabama. Or the genetic mapping of grapes.

 

All might be wonderful things that need to be done and paid for by the industries or states that they benefit but not the federal government's responsibility.

 

Lets ignore the silly earmarks that you listed.

 

Are earmarks that will stimulate a state's economy bad?

Lets ignore the silly earmarks that you listed.

 

Are earmarks that will stimulate a state's economy bad?

 

I don't think they are bad, I just don't want them snuck in at the last minute. We should all know what we are getting and what we are paying for!

I don't think they are bad, I just don't want them snuck in at the last minute. We should all know what we are getting and what we are paying for!

 

I was listening to someone on Meet the Press this morning who said that earmarks are down 80% (or some large number) and that they are now available online WITH the person requesting the earmark. He mentioned that there will be no more "bridge to nowhere" where no one could figure out which Senator put it in.

Lets ignore the silly earmarks that you listed.

 

Are earmarks that will stimulate a state's economy bad?

 

By silly, I am assuming you mean isolated, because the earmarks he mentioned are actual earmarks that were put into the stimulus bill.

By silly, I am assuming you mean isolated, because the earmarks he mentioned are actual earmarks that were put into the stimulus bill.

 

I'm aware of that. I think we can all agree that those are exactly the types of earmarks that upset the public.

 

However, I think the public all proclaim their distaste for earmarks without realizing that some have value.

KY Republican Mitch McConnell ran his campaign on earmarks and what he had got for Kentucky. He is still pulling in the dollars. (latest figure from the current legislation is around 75 million)

 

The earmarks McConnell asked for in the current omnibus include $950,000 for the Western Kentucky University bikeway project, $427,000 for the Gunpowder Creek trail in Boone County and $1.6 million for the Forage Animal Production Research Laboratory in Lexington

 

I believe that its what we send these folks up there to do. If McConnell isn't sending money back to the Commonwealth then he isnt doing something right. That being said, there are some ridiculous earmarks that I think can be done without. The real problem in my opinion is responsible spending. Lets spend responsibly and I dont think anyone would complain.

I'm aware of that. I think we can all agree that those are exactly the types of earmarks that upset the public.

 

However, I think the public all proclaim their distaste for earmarks without realizing that some have value.

 

Then ALL should be brought into the light of day and voted on on their individual merits rather then being attached to a piece of legislation that they are in no way shape or form related to.

Then ALL should be brought into the light of day and voted on on their individual merits rather then being attached to a piece of legislation that they are in no way shape or form related to.

 

 

:thumb: Way too many earmarks are just a method for elected officials to buy votes.

 

Of course there are good projects in these earmarks, but like you I feel they should be measured on their own merit. I personally feel if they only benefit their home state, then they should be paid for by the home state.

The trouble is that earmarks have become the political currency for politicians and lobbyists on the Hill. They invite graft and corruption, and the perception of it. Earmarks are not the primary subject of any given bill, but are attached to them for the gain of one politician or another, and are therefore not the subject of meritorious debate on their passage. They rarely go through a democratic process. For instance, on a defense appropriations bill, our elected officials spend all of their time, and our resources, seeing what they can get for their vote, instead of debating the merits of the defense appropriations bill itself. It turns each politician into a hog waller for his/her own constituency, rather than debating the national merit of things we need as a country.

The trouble is that earmarks have become the political currency for politicians and lobbyists on the Hill. They invite graft and corruption, and the perception of it. Earmarks are not the primary subject of any given bill, but are attached to them for the gain of one politician or another, and are therefore not the subject of meritorious debate on their passage. They rarely go through a democratic process. For instance, on a defense appropriations bill, our elected officials spend all of their time, and our resources, seeing what they can get for their vote, instead of debating the merits of the defense appropriations bill itself. It turns each politician into a hog waller for his/her own constituency, rather than debating the national merit of things we need as a country.

 

Good points, my man.

So do we all agree that earmarks will always be part of the process and that its the process itself that needs to be improved?