Do you believe earmarks = wasteful spending?

[RB TexLa]

Poll question: Do you believe earmarks = wasteful spending?

[readmoreoften]

1. I can't understand what's so horrific about earmarks frankly. /nt

[librechik]

2. as long as it doesn't kill people or electrocute soldiers, I don't have a problem

with the tiny earmark sector of the budget. They should stop talking about grains of sand and go after the mountain which is blocking our path, i. e. wasteful DEFENSE SPENDING!!!

[Juche]

3. Alot is for science, infrastructure and poverty programs

I don't consider that wasteful.

[Terry in Austin]

4. From the political dictionary

"Prudent public spending" = my program
"Notorious boondoggle" = your program

:evilgrin:

[Blue_In_AK]

5. As the representative of the people of his or her state,

it's a congressperson's job to bring home federal dollars. That money also puts people to work.

[Believing Is Art]

6. Other

The practice of marking anything with one's ears should be banned. Nine out of ten doctors agree that the ink and foreign particles lead directly to ear infections.

[baldguy]

7. One persons "pork-barrel earmark" is another's "vital federal program"

This whole flap about earmarks is bullshit. Economic stimulus requires spending money - Wall St & the private sector aren't doing it. That leaves only the federal govt to do it.

[ThomWV]

8. I think a lot of people don't understand that they don't involve new or additional funds

That an earmark is direction of a portion of existing funds to a directed source, not new money. So first there has to be a program for something like rebuilding libraries, then a Congress critter can have the Honorable John Jones City Library designated as one of the libraries that will get rebuilding funds, maybe before anyone else gets theirs, but notice that its not new money. That is how they work. A Congress person doesn't get special funding for a pet project, they get to guide pet projects to an elevated spot in the selection chain for those that eventually get funded.

[notesdev]

10. Yep

If a program or project is worthy, there is no reason to earmark it; it can win funds on merit. Earmarks are embezzlement.

[drmeow]

9. Option 3 plus earmarks

are distributed unfairly by population. Alaska being a case in point.

[Caliman73]

11. One group's pork is another's "community rennovation"

I don't think earmarks are bad on their face. What I don't like is when projects are put into a bill that has nothing to do with the legislation it is attached to just for the purpose of securing a passage. That is just legal bribery. I understand that every Senators job is to represent the state which elected them. That service includes getting federal money to supplement state spending for domestic spending. What we need is more transparency and information about what is in a bill and why. I wouldn't mind earmark reform where the money has to be related to the bill being discussed or fiscal impact of a federal bill to a state might necessitate some compensation that can be granted through earmarked funding.

[4lbs]

12. Looking at some of the earmarks (there are about 9000 altogether), most of the useful ones come from

the Democrats. The Repukes' earmarks are close to the definition of pork.