It’s like all the idulg.., oops I’m sorry, “waivers” that HHS has been kicking out on ObamaDontCare. MB is wrong on this and undermines her own good work. Sad to see….

many DOT’s are even more corrupt with the distribution of highway money than the federal earmark process, so it is not like this is a win. The way to fix this is in the middle, allow the earmark to go so long as the project is on the DOT list for potential projects (the lists are typically vetted regionally).

Why not another bill?

Congress has no business creating bills more than about 50 pages long anyway.

I would love to have a president who would refuse to sign anything more than 50 pages long, and force them to break them up into individual bills on their own merit.

No need for line-item veto then, just don’t sign anything bigger than that.

If the Government didn’t extort the money from the individuals or the states in the first place.
Unlike most, I like earmarks, to a degree. It puts the money illegally taken back where it belongs. In the hands of the states and in consequence the hands of The People.

I would rather that taxes be reduced and the money STAY in the hands of the State and the PEOPLE. But that is another story.

I don’t want to see Repub’s play the Dem. game of Carve-Out. Good for one, then darn-it, Good for ALL!

The only sure way to end runaway federal spending is to restore the original constitutional limits on federal power through constitutional amendment. See http://www.timelyrenewed.com/?p=221

They’ve never passed any laws that violate the Constitution or its amendments, have they?

Other than:

1. Obamacare (Commerce Clause et al)
2. Campaign finance reform (#1 Amend)
3. Gun control laws (#2 Amend)
4. Too many laws to count violate #10
5. Ad infinitum

Proper grammar saves lives.

Let’s eat Grandma.
Let’s eat, Grandma.

---

Activists Taking Action: Unified Patriots

Lets not forget that there are many state highways and state department of transportations already.

The one thing you leave out of your solution (the ultimately important thing) is that some states have absolutely terrible income versus needs when it comes to roads and bridges.

You are correct about local places knowing more than the federal goverment about specific projects or placement. Although those can be crooked too.

You are also correct that we must protect bridges to no where – but at the same time if you were to leave the money only to states with no federal attention then guess what happens to your infrastracture? It rots.

Of course the alternative really is to ban ALL earmarks and let the executive branch determine what projects and pork is in/out.

In my mind its all bad until we figure out something a little more honest. Keeping in mind that humans are inherently evil save good is present due to God.

with all the co-writers that need roads and bridges repaired from all states and everyone be able to read about each-others, amending to get rid of pork and allocating FUNDS from the existing tax stream (no stealing from the kids) Each bill requiring funding should ID the source that is de-funded (ex: public radio, dept of education, sell off federal properties in the west, etc.)

Thank you Mr. Erickson. This topic is critical in order for a ban on earmarks to be effective.

As others have pointed out, state governments are equally guilty of playing politics with transportation dollars. All route funds to new projects that satisfy crony wants rather than priority taxpayer needs. Those funds should be spent where the rubber hits the pavement. Use them to maintain, repair, and enforce traffic safety laws for existing state highways, city streets, and county roads.

At a time when state and local budgets are bleeding, this would help to shore up resources and combat the grab for new revenues.

the problem with earmarks (besides the federalism and wasteful spending issues) is that they’re used to buy off members’ votes on big-ticket legislation, legislation the member would otherwise oppose. Why, for fiscal sanity purposes, would we want to continue this practice?

If Rep. Bachmann’s constituents have a request for funds, and the funding is something the federal government should support (even giving the “should support” broad definition), she can submit the request through the proper committee and have the request judged on its own merits. In other words, if Minn. needs a new highway or bridge, then she should make the request as part of the Transportation budgeting process, rather than tossing it in on defense or ag or some other non-related bill that makes her susceptible to voting for legislation she would ordinarily opposed.

This seems pretty simple to me. Straighten up GOP.

After reading the first link in Erick’s post, I was struck by this quote from the congressman from my native district,

“It’s like what beauty is,” said Rep. Phil Roe (R-Tenn.). “Everyone knows what a bridge to nowhere is, or an airport that lands no airplanes, or a statue to you — everyone knows that’s bad. It’s easy to say what an earmark isn’t, rather than what an earmark is.”

Here’s the problem. I know folks who’ve attended local chamber of commerce meetings in the district that requested the so-called “Bridge to Nowhere.” To them, the project is beautiful.

Government doesn’t have unlimited taxpayer dollars. Rather than play politics with new projects, Republicans should use that money to take care of existing infrastructure. Use a formula for funding that makes sense across the board. Either that, or come clean that taxes and debt are only a problem when your’re in the minority.

Cutting earmarks doesn’t save any money. The money is appropriated first. The level of spending is set for the bill to be sent to the floor, and doesn’t change because of earmark requests.

Remember: SOMEBODY will decide how the money is spent. It can be a member of Congress who must disclose who donates money and gives them gifts, or an unelected bureaucrat who is not so closely scrutinized. Even returning the money directly to the states through block grants tends to yield fewer controls and less scrutiny.

Banning earmarks is bright and sparkly, though.

Erick’s suggestion gas taxes be returned to states directly where they were collected is a well-known bad idea. It would lead to deteriorating roads and bridges in the poorer and more rural states, which eventually hurts everyone economically and is the reason we have a national highway policy in the first place. And perhaps not coincidentally, the urban states who collect the most in gas taxes are the least efficient and most corrupt in their highway contracts.

You still cannot be a little bit pregnant, solve loneliness with someone else’s spouse, park a car too close to a truck and not risk a scratch or dent as a result, nor can you allow any rational to creep into the decision about earmarks. It is not the earmark that cost so much money, it is the cost of votes in their support that engulf the system in coitus as sweet as kissing the wrong person in the dark and conceptually as fruitful for the kisser. In all a very costly process to society hidden in emperors clothing.

This corrupt practice has gone on long enough.
Most of us are getting pretty FED UP with all of the corruption at all levels of government.
Killing off earmarks is just a start.

As to highway funding?, it’s actually one of the few things the federal government is allowed to do under the Constitution, they are obligated to create and maintain “Post Roads” ie. Interstate Highways.
As far as the thousands of intrastate “US highways” they should be devolved to the the states, because most of them are the result of pork barrel earmarks anyway, and the state DOTs maintain them.

Want to start cleaning up the corruption at all levels?
Get the Unions out of the road maintenance and construction business.

They all gotta go. Period.
And at this point I don’t care how it happens.
Think about that.

The Fair Tax, and to a lesser degree a Flat Tax extract from DC the discretion to allocate payback to their supporters, Further, congressional funding becomes dependent upon how adequately government manages the economy. Doubly so in the enticing spectre of balanced budget + no deficit spending requirements.

Certainly, governement will exhaust all the funding potentlal you allow them. Resurrect Reagan – “Government IS the problem”.

Government expands proportionally to the fuel ($$$) available.

Therefore, solve the problem, starve the wildfire by constricting cashflow.

far more money than we take in. We are bankrupting generations of future Americans. We have ceded our position as the world superpower. Europeans are rioting in the streets. Soon there will be riots in America well orchestrated by the left. We are poised for a global collapse. Yet we keep earmarking and spending money we don’t have. When are we going to stop?