Bring back earmarks

[Recursion]

Looking at the smoking ruin that is the US Congress right now, that's my conclusion: bring back earmarks. They served a purpose, that of allowing the majority and minority leadership to actually have some control over their rank and file and actually assemble some kind of coherent legislative strategy rather than turning the Capitol into a 535-person Youtube comment section.

[shadowmayor]

1. Amen

All the pork added up to only a few tens of billions per year. A bunch of this money went into construction projects and others were funded through Federal Agencies for more local stuff. Whether it's a Tea Pot museum in Ohio, a Jack Rabbit park in Montana or a new bridge in New Mexico, pork brought the bucks home. It was a relief valve for the obstructionist idiocy that allowed money to actually flow to the states and counties and cities. Hell yes, America loves pork!!! Bring back pork!!!

[Recursion]

2. Earmarks couldn't increase authorized spending, though

So they didn't "add up" to anything, really.

[Jim Beard]

3. I agree. Its a shame to need to have it but maybe it will keep enough people like Cruz in place.

[JonLeibowitz]

4. Charlie Rangel read this thread, declaring he is now seeking re-election.

Seriously though, with Citizens United having an out-sized effect on congressional races (it has been shown to have a weak effect in presidential primaries, at least) wouldn't earmarks be abused even more? Super PACs could actually buy earmarks.

[Recursion]

5. Bear with me: "And?"

Super PACs could actually buy earmarks.

True. And?

What's actually bad about that? Christ, we're the richest country in history by a large margin; what the hell is the point of that if not to buy off whoever needs buying off?