March 9, 200917 yr 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? The flip side is that there are so many bills these days that if earmarks were bills unto themselves, they would almost never get heard. The problem that needs revising is that there is too much legislation.
March 9, 200917 yr 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. . :thumb: Good Earmark definition. Plus, IMO Earmarks are not Pork. They may both be wasteful spending, but Pork is actually a debated part of the bill, while Earmarks are not. Just my opinion.
March 11, 200917 yr Lets ignore the silly earmarks that you listed. Are earmarks that will stimulate a state's economy bad? An attempt to circumvent the budgeting process that does not include a vote on the merits of the earmark is bad. If it stimulates something and is good it should be able to pass a vote based on it's merits.
March 11, 200917 yr BTW, only five US Senators did not add pet projects to the Omnibus Bill: McCain®, DeMint ®, Coburn ®, Feingold (D), and McCaskill (D).
March 12, 200917 yr Author I didn't realize that the money spent on earmarks is money that's already been budgeted to be spent. So the earmarks are not adding to the spending.
March 12, 200917 yr I liked this part of the article, describing what future changes in the earmark requests might look like: have a legitimate and worthy public purpose; be revealed in advance on lawmakers' Web sites; be open to scrutiny at public hearings; be subject to the same competitive bidding requirements as other federal contracts if the earmark is for a for-profit company; and never be traded for political favors.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.