would be prepared to PRIMARY them in 2012. I think they must have forgotten the primary process where there were 2 or more begging to be the Republican candidate and those same people will be more then happy to have their chance to hear US!

Earmarks don’t create greater spending, they only direct what is already appropriated.

If you start with a $20B appropriations bill and add $14B worth of earmarks, you still only have a $20B bill.

If the $14 B of earmarks didn’t exist, the $20B appropriation would be for $6B. That’s also $14B we wouldn’t have to borrow or our kids and grandkids wouldn’t have to borrow. Looks as if some liberal/progressive math has sneaked in here.

And justify those projects. I dare you. There are three problems with earmarks:
1. They increase the cost of legislation, because the appropriators tend to game the system to allow bills to pass way over the budgetary allocations.
2. The compromise members efforts to cut waste, fraud and abuse on the part of the Administration, because they don’t have clean hands when pointing out fraud in the executive branch.
3. They are corrupting. Many members trade earmarks on an appropriations bill for votes on other bills. The Medicare Prescription Drug benefit was bought with earmarks. That cost the taxpayers over $600 billion in the ten year budgetary window after the bill passed. Also, it is corrupting for members to secure an earmark, then that earmark recipient, and the recipients lobbyists, give money to the member’s campaign for re-election. Senator Patty Murray (D-Wash.) was accused of enriching former staffers by funnelling earmarks to entities represented by her former staff. Those staffers then donated to the member. This is a revolving door of another flavor.

It’s not just the real cost of the earmarks themselves that are the problem but as I heard Jim DeMint explain, very logically, it is the fact that earmarks are used as congressional bribes where the true costs come in.

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/your-world-cavuto/transcript/sen-jim-demint-we-are-monetizing-our-debt

Earmarks were the vehicles for the Cornhusker Kickback and the Louisiana Purchase. These favors that get people to vote for devastatingly huge costs in money and liberty to the citizens is where the REAL problems arise.

Get rid of this “gateway drug” for Congressmen and you get rid of a lot of the problems. Its a start and sure, if the argument against it is that its really not that much money, the response should be that it shouldnt be such a big deal then, should it?

In one sense, they DON’T cost the taxpayers money. (Hear me out, I’m not arguing for earmarks).

The money is already spent in the appropriation bill, and the earmark is only directing how a portion of that money has to be spent. The argument for earmarks is that a congressman from a district is determining how the money will be spent, instead of a nameless bureaucrat in DC. An earmark isn’t additional spending.

For example, a bill appropriates 1 Mil, in spending for an energy bill, and 25,000 dollars of that gets earmarked for a windfarm in a small community.

HOWEVER, I’m not advocating earmarks I and agree that they should be banned. But the argument that they cost money is not technicaly correct. In my opinion the better argument goes like this: Why should a military funding bill have earmarks to pay for funding an art festival in some town, or why should a bill appropriating money for federal law enforcement have a portion of the money appropriated to study cow flatulance? It’s a waste of money, but it is the total bill that should be reduced since the earmarked money has already been spent.

Let’s say that we start with $200 billion worth of money.

If none of that money is earmarked and I go to congress and say “Let’s cut 10% of the money,” it’s not personal.

If we have $160 billion worth of earmarks in the $200 billion and I say “Let’s cut 10% of the money,” it suddenly gets REALLY personal for a whole bunch of people.

So I don’t buy that it doesn’t cost money to earmark.

I guess these legislators who serve the people think the people are STUPID! Catch this one STUPID, GET OUT OF OUR HOUSE BEFORE YOU ARE THROWN OUT!

Federalism implies a differentiation of powers between the central government and its constituent units (the states.) The U.S. Constitution describes a federal system. However, an honest study of the country today would make obvious the fact that we do not have a federal system. Grants and mandates have neutered state authority and limited it to those powers permitted by the national government. This is not federalism.

A review of history would show that the states actually granted some authority to the central government. That has since changed radically.

A lot of this problem came to pass following the ratification of the 17th Amendment. At that point, states lost their voice in the central government. To return some sanity to the system and appropriate authority to the states, we must repeal the 17th Amendment.

is it gives incumbents great power to get re-elected on top of the advantages that incumbents already have — greater visibility and name recognition, ect.

While we may want some in Congress to get re-elected, it’s a corruption of the democratic process because voters’ judgments are skewed by what amounts to bribes instead of focusing on what the candidate did to reduce the size of government, or reduce taxes, lower crime rate, national security, ect. It’s no wonder RINO’s manage to hang on in so many states.

Can anyone honestly say that earmarks are not vote buying?

is a bloated budget… if they are spending the lights out, No matter WHAT the money is appropriated for it’s TOO FAT. It is OVER spending. STOP the over spending and include “earmarks” for the chopping block – PERIOD!

Don’t be duping us with catch phrases, and going after the female vote with “It’s good for the children” to try and get your “EARMARK” money… it’s not yours, IT’S OURS! And we don’t want it spent on BS!

they have been involved in pay to play for some years. If you want your opponent’s project in the Pig Book it can be made to happen.
http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2009/09/02/citizens-against-government-waste-and-payola/

money is absolutely true given that the money that they are “appropriating” came directly from the taxpayer. Let’s be real, earmarks have turned into nothing more than a vote-buying gimmick to win re-election. Many of the earmarks are kickbacks to the people who helped get them elected. Why do you think they are hollering so much? If you look at some of the absolutely ridiculous things these earmarks go to, it will make you ill. There is absolutely NO logical argument for keeping them around.
As an added note, I have to say that if Mr. Paul decides to not jump on board with banning earmarks, the people of Kentucky need to do some serious reminding of who put him in office and who can take him out of office.