Comments on: The Earmark Battle That Won’t Subside

By: ohiohistorian

ohiohistorian — Mon, 28 May 2012 01:20:06 +0000

Have you ever read a Federal budget? I have to do so; there is so much unspecified slush in the spending that a line item cannot possibly be used to control. You think that the Assistant Secretary for Whatever doesn’t have an “earmark” in how HE will spend the money to favor a friend? What do you think happened in Solyndra?

Go read the Federal Register. There is so much useless garbage purchased by the Feds that it is crazy. At least with the staff in Congress, you have a little control over the bureaucracy. In the EPA, you cannot fire the bureaucracy, but in Congress you sure can. Staff seldom stick around if there is a party to party. shift.

You cannot find angels in either the Congress or the bureaucracy. I’d rather have the Congress have the control.

By: fishgod3

fishgod3 — Tue, 22 May 2012 18:06:12 +0000

I liked it better when we called it pork barrel. Pork just sounds so much greasier. So much easier to slip it to the tax payer.A way to grease the skids to get it pushed through.The damm pols need to wear gloves and aprons to handle some of it!!!!!!

By: fishgod3

fishgod3 — Tue, 22 May 2012 17:56:36 +0000

And more staff means more unpaid income tax.

By: gmhunt

gmhunt — Tue, 22 May 2012 12:53:37 +0000

The only way to get rid of earmarks, is to make “lobbying” a crime with an auto-mac jail sentence……..

By: notpropagandized

notpropagandized — Mon, 21 May 2012 19:01:42 +0000

When they get their earmarks back, they’ll all barter between themselves for one “drug” or another. Most of the states are big enough budget-wise that the Federal Government is unnecessary to administrate nearly anything.

By: notpropagandized

notpropagandized — Mon, 21 May 2012 18:58:34 +0000

John Culberson just earned my dedication to have him replaced in 2014 if he runs for Congress again. He will never ever get my vote again, including for this May 29 primary. These guys just don’t get it.

By: acat

acat — Mon, 21 May 2012 16:07:05 +0000

This is not a nebulous term.

Congress allocates, the Executive spends.

Your argument, by the way, is weak – the Congress would simply increase staffing, and business in D.C. will continue as it always has.

Mew

By: ohiohistorian

ohiohistorian — Mon, 21 May 2012 16:01:00 +0000

For example, when Harry Reid used the language he did to reprogram funding for transportation in Nevada, was that or was it not an earmark?

I am in favor of not giving any agency the latitude to program funds. Congress should have to tell them specifically how to spend ANY appropriation. This will lead to smaller government, because it cannot be done by Congress with current staff loading, and we as a country should see that Congressional staff are reduced, not increased.