Comments on: Don’t Bring Back Earmarks!

By: ihateliberals

ihateliberals — Thu, 31 May 2012 17:07:31 +0000

n/t

By: deddier

deddier — Thu, 31 May 2012 13:08:38 +0000

Apparently Congress just doesn’t get it! Earmarks are one of the chief reasons we have been over budget for years and years. The powers that be in Congress today who think we were kidding about earmarks will not be re-elected. It is painfully obvious that we cannot trust the ones in power today and we should vote them all out! Where is the viable 3rd party that we can look up to that will put the people back in power. Right now it is “government of the greedy, by the greedy and for the greedy” and you can take this message back to the bank where they go with all their “perks” to which we have no apparent voice nor realize any gain from.

By: Neil Stevens

Neil Stevens — Thu, 31 May 2012 11:12:04 +0000

It’s possible for the legislature to direct spending without an earmark process.

By: michaelbowler

michaelbowler — Thu, 31 May 2012 10:47:38 +0000

Earmarking is a way of specifying the exact location of funds, leading to corruption by reps and senators. In absence of the earmarks, does this not allow the executive more latitude as to where funds are spent?

Were this admin not so partisan, it might not be such an issue.

By: GreyCloak

GreyCloak — Thu, 31 May 2012 08:17:22 +0000

… is a necessary project among politicians.

Earmark money still gets spent, but it it oh, so much more hidden.

I’ve actually read a few recent bills (unlike my Congressman and most of his compatriots), and I can assure you that earmarks still exist. They take the form of vague references in appropriations to contracts that are being negotiated, for specific amounts.

For instance (made up situation): “$1.5 million is allocated to the Department of Dimwits to purchase advanced technological equipment in furtherance of their efficiency goals” shows up in an agency budget authorization bill. It is purely coincidental that the Dimwits have recently issued an RFP (Request for Proposals) that demands that “the covering of the proposed computer system shall be blue,” even though the covering had nothing to do with the system’s performance. Hitachi has submitted a bid for $1.3 million for a comparable computer (as had CDC, an American company), but their computers are covered in red. IBM (“big blue”) wins the contract. An imaginary scenario, and the numbers were (oops, it’s a fantasy, never happened) much larger,

It would be foolish to presume that politicians of any ilk are ignorant of or unresponsive to political contributions. The last company I worked for offered our local (Illinois) Democrat Representative the option to buy IPO shares; My previous employer gave me the opporunity to shake the hand of the (failed) Republican candidate for Texas Governor, but paid him for attending our company outing.

It is odd that politicians and Parties spend far more on elections than the job is worth (in salary). But they make it up “on commissions.”

By: Neil Stevens

Neil Stevens — Thu, 31 May 2012 06:52:58 +0000

… or the incentive to reduce spending.

By: Dave_A

Dave_A — Thu, 31 May 2012 04:01:52 +0000

Or did they simply prohibit politicians from setting aside money for their own districts, but leave spending at the same level?

Somehow, from what I heard, the ‘earmark money’ still gets spent, it just doesn’t get ‘set-aside’ for a specific district or project…

Which makes the earmark-ban pointless, from a budgetary perspective…