A realistic look at "earmarks"

[SHRED]

Is that possible?

They make up less than 1% of the budget yet so much angst towards them?
Why?

And why also considering only a small portion of those earmarks can be considered wasteful "pork"?

I am not for waste but lets get real.
Is our society always going to be duped, by the mainstream media, towards hype over substance?


--

[baldguy]

1. Legislators used to be able to insert their pet projects into bills anonymously.

The earmark system was the solution.

[leftyclimber]

From my understanding, earmarks were traditionally used

to fund stuff that had been mandated but not funded in previous legislation, to make sure the project went forward. "Pork" used to be for projects created out of whole cloth and funded simultaneously.

If my understanding is correct, it means this opposition to earmarks means that there are going to be a lot more unfunded mandates forced on states in the future.

Please, somebody, correct me if I'm wrong so I don't have to worry about this.

[leftyclimber]

2. Dupe.

Sorry.

[Psephos]

3. Earmarks are inherently corrupting. Ask Randy Cunningham.

I'm surprised how much attention is paid to the cost of earmarks relative to the overall budget, and how little is paid to the opportunities for payola, kickback, and special treatment for lobbyists' special interests.

For a current example, look what's coming to light about Murtha and PMA.

[stillcool]

4. I don't hear anything about..

earmarks that are used legitimately. People throw around dollar amounts, and examples like the Bridge to Nowhere of excess, and other instances of corruption. I'm sure there are lots of things in my state that have been funded through federal dollars that came as the result of an 'earmark', but I don't know what they are.

[hay rick]

6. MA earmarks.

Here's a listing of some of the earmarks for Massachusetts from the Globe: http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/02/26/bringing_it_home/

Lots of good transit and health care stuff in the list.

[stillcool]

7. thanks...I'm confused..

I thought that it was the job of our Senators and Representatives to 'lobby' the federal government for projects that would improve our state. I guess I thought it was part of the reason we pay taxes.

[terisan]

5. One reason among many: Steers other people's money to many private entities

which, in turn, spend part of it helping the earmarker get re-elected or get cushy positions when they leave office, and gives the many companies, including non-profits as well as military contractors, unfair competitive advantage.

Earmarks are often bribes and they help create a powerful, non-meritocracy ruling class.

Check out Duke Cunningham. Easier to see how bad they are when looking at Republican earmarks.



<http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/cunningham/20051203-9999-1n3earmarks.html>

An analysis by the Democratic staff of the House Appropriations Committee contends that earmarking of defense spending has more than tripled since fiscal year 1995. (Overall, defense spending has increased dramatically since the 2001 terrorist attacks and the beginning of the Iraq war.)

A Republican spokesman for the House Appropriations Committee did not return a call for comment.

Ornstein and other critics argue that the practice of earmarking has become little more than a way to boost lawmakers' re-election prospects, reward contributors and, for some, secure lucrative employment later with the businesses or lobbying firms they help.

It also allows party leaders to maintain discipline and pass controversial bills that are loaded with money for local projects.

"It has exploded since Republicans took control," said Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz. "It's shameless. . . . It's really out of control."

"Members are getting hooked on earmarks quickly. They are led to believe that that is the way you get re-elected. The leadership pretends that they're going to get earmarks under control. But they love them because once they get the members hooked, they can lead them around by the nose," Flake said.

[notesdev]

8. Earmarks are markers for corruption

These things are purely payback for political donations and favors. There is no legitimate reason why all appropriated monies cannot be administered and distributed fairly and without preference to any politician's supporters. The only reason to earmark is as a quid pro quo for bribery.

[hfojvt]

11. it's not quite that simple

One earmark I found was for a street project in my city. It was sponsored by the Democrat of my district in the House and by a Republican from my state in the Senate. That example seems to be funding and job creation for the area they represent. I don't see any bribery there.

[notesdev]

12. I would bet

That if the funding for this project were closely inspected, one would find a link between donations/favors and its appropriation. It is very common these days to find donors giving to members of both parties.

[hay rick]

9. Earmark angst.

The media fuss over earmarks is designed to reinforce the right-wing talking point: government spending = waste. It serves a secondary purpose of focusing attention and outrage on small-scale items rather than on the larger picture of our budget and economy. Some of the outrages that the media want to distract Americans from:

American military expenditures = military expenditures of the rest of the world combined.
American health care spending per capita: double that of our European peers.
Richest 1% share of income, 1980: 8.5%; richest 1% share of income, 2005: 21.2%.

Earmarks typically represent less than 1% of all budgeted spending. Never mind the elephants, let's go after those pesky gnats.

[hugo_from_TN]

10. Corporate jets and Las Vegas parties make up far less than 1% of corporate budgets.

Why all the fuss about them?