Ahem, why do we need to have "earmarks" in our budget anyway?

[CTyankee]

So we're back to "1994 levels of earmarks" in our new budget. Looking at them I feel a little sick. Yes, more of them are Republican earmarks than Democratic earmarks, but why should our party engage in them at all?

I must be more than a bit naive here, but can't we get the budget business done without these onerous earmarks? We're Democrats, we do the real budget stuff, not superfluous dross. And if some of this stuff is actually needed, shouldn't there be special spending bills that address those issues?

I am talking about earmarks, here, not infrastructure, education, technological spending that is vital and urgent. This earmark stuff, lower tho it may be than under *, makes a perfect target against us.

I'm willing to be educated, tho, if I've got it wrong...

[baldguy]

1. One person's "earmarks" are another's vital infrastructure, education, technological spending.

If you're going to spend money to have stimulus & investment - it's got to go somewhere.

[CTyankee]

3. I understand that argument; however in today's NYT Maureen Dowd listed some of these

earlmarks and I simply, for the life of me, didn't see the connection. Here's the link http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/04/opinion/04dowd.html?_r=1

Maybe the study of pig odor or the removal of gang members tattoos have some redeeming economic benefits; somewhere, perhaps, they do. All I am saying is that they can be used against us, just as McCain has tried to do.

I was kind of under the impression that we have HUGE infrastructure investment projects and education projects that could be put ahead of lesser items and these are projects that have gone unaddressed for a long time. It's really a question of priorities.

[DeepBlueC]

6. both of the ones you cite I understand immediately

and to me they both make a lot of sense. Maureen Dowd is addicted to dripping scorn indiscriminately. Don't expect her to do any investigation into the social value of anything that sounds weird enough to mock on. She can take a seat with Bobby Jindal as far as I am concerned.

[baldguy]

11. McCain - and Dowd - is engaging in the same old bullshit tactics the GOP always does.

First off - none of these programs costs over $2 million. Cutting them out of a $400 billion bill won't change it one bit. And secondly - if they McCain really had questions about the need for any of these programs - he's a fucking US Senator. All he has to do is ask and he'll have people falling all over themselves to explain them to him.

But that's not his objective of course. The GOP broke the economy and they want to keep it broken. What the RW wants to do - with the help of lapdogs like Maureen Dowd - is to undermine the people's confidence in the ability of fed govt to do anything revitalize the economy & alleviate the problems the public faces.

The fact is each one of those programs can be expected to return many times more to the economy than the small amount invested - yes, including the measly $200k for tattoo removal. Only fools would question their need.

[napi21]

2. Earmarks are a faster way to get things done that going through the

individual appropropriations process. The congress critters will tell you that if they just appropriated the funds in total, ie: $3 Million for highways, the Executive Branch would determine where & how it was spent. They feel that THEY are much more knowlegable of what's needed in their districts than the WH is, thus the earmarks.

There's something else you have to keep in mind. What's one person's earmark is viewed as pork by someone else.

I'm not certain how I feel about earmarks. I tend to think the WORD "earmark" has been demonized more than necessary. Right now, I'm leaning toward insisting that all earmarks be prominently listed on a web site, in the newspaper, etc. and let the voters determine if they like or dislike what their reps are doing.

[CTyankee]

5. Well, read the article, where some of the earmarks are described and tell me what you think.

Surely, in some of these congresspersons districts there are more schools to fix, proved educational programs to be shored up, road and bridge work that have been neglected. I just wonder about the "pig odor" type stuff that may have some scientific basis but might not be our biggest priority at this time.

[jwirr]

12. If you have ever lived next to a pig farm you would have no doubt

that this makes sense. It can be smelled for at least a mile away and there are all kinds of extra flies that live in the odor area. As to it being an earmark I am not sure that it is a legit expenditure but there is a real problem with the odor.

[DeepBlueC]

4. They are state representatives, after all

and the earmark system does give each of them a chance to do something important to their state, which they are in the best position to understand. No one appears willing to give it up. It can be useful and valuable but it also holds the potential for corrupting abuse. That's why everyone at the top wants a line item veto. But if they did have that, it might well be "okay for my pals veto for you" and just as susceptible to political manipulation. You can imagine what a Bush, man-of-no-shame, would have done with that power.

I just don't know. You know how fruit flies and volcano-monitoring can be mocked for political purposes, maybe the demonization of earmarks is akin to that. But of course there is the question of who, if anyone, sets the limits for this discretionary allocation of spending and does that person have any guidelines to observe.

I'm really just opining randomly because I do not know enough about how it works. We all respond to the word "pork" but we are easily manipulated by our knee-jerk response as well.

[Vilis Veritas]

7. Earmarks are payoffs.

That is my opinion and mine alone.

That is why BOTH sides put them in...

[rufus dog]

8. hard to say without doing research

Easy to bitch and moan about spending money.

For example, the first item is Grape genetic research, would have to look into it but you are aware that wine is recommended for health, something in grapes is obviously beneficial, genetic research identifying the exact solution may unlock the ability to treat numerous diseases.

Item two - honey bees, there has been a great die off of bees, without bees you lose pollination, without that you severely impact farming costing the economy billions of dollars.

My point is that it is real hard to criticize without looking into the detail of each line.

[ieoeja]

9. Alternative?

Not an earmark: $X for highways.

Is an earmark: $N of the $X for highways shall be earmarked for the extension of I-69 from Indianapolis, IN to Evansville, IN.


Why would you prefer that the President decide where to spend that entire $X? If you are a fan of the "imperial presidency" then that would make sense. Cutting the President a blank check would certainly increase his power.

Personally, I'd rather see Presidential powers curtailed a bit.

[TayTay]

10. I think the pig odor one is well founded

Swine Odor Researchers Target an Ill Wind
By Luis Pons
August 3, 2006

Phenomena such as housing sprawl into farmland and the emergence of large-scale livestock operations have made odor from swine-production facilities a point of contention in many suburban and farming communities.

That's why the five researchers in the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) Swine Odor and Manure Management Research Unit at Ames, Iowa, are trying to tackle swine-manure odor at its source: inside the pig.

According to the unit's research leader, animal nutritionist Brian Kerr, the strategy at Ames is to formulate diets for the pigs that will lessen odor-causing compounds. His unit evaluates how factors such as nutrition, microbial ecology and pathogens affect how pigs excrete nutrients and produce odiferous waste.

One way the scientists have found to control nitrogen-containing compounds such as ammonia is to reduce the pigs’ protein intake by giving them less soybean meal and balancing their diet with crystalline amino acids. According to Kerr, research has shown that for each one percent reduction in dietary crude protein intake, ammonia emissions are reduced by eight to 10 percent.

More at the link: http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/2006/060803.htm

The odor problem is bad for neighbors of pig farms. (Really, really bad.) I have no problem with that amount of money being put into research. At all. I think it's money well spent and Maureen Dowd was once again just picking things out at random to complaint about without researching them at all. (Seriously, she is a terrible columnist.)

Ah, this is the problem: http://tewksburyodor.org/

[kiranon]

13. What - the Republicans want earmarks spent in other countries instead of ours?

Of course earmarks are in the stimulus bill. Where else would the money be spent and on what?