An earmark by any other name would smell so sweet

...and this is why earmarks will never die.

When the money is going somewhere else, it's an evil earmark. When you've managed to snag a job-rich, infrastructure-enhancing project for your district full of deserving taxpayers who want something in return for all of the $$ they send to Washington, you're doing what they elected you to do.

Not a fan of Bachmann.

I don't understand why this is so hard for the old guard to get. We the people don't want stuff like this happening. So stop doing it!!

What is it some don't understand about not putting earmarks into large appropriation bills that must be passed. It balloons the amount of the bill when it would be just as productive to submit the requested project to be funded by an appropriate grant process. But then, that wouldn't garner any votes for the particular elected official, would it?

What is it some don't understand about not putting earmarks into large appropriation bills that must be passed. It balloons the amount of the bill when it would be just as productive to submit the requested project to be funded by an appropriate grant process. But then, that wouldn't garner any votes for the particular elected official, would it?

Actually if you had a grant process you would still have a grant approval committee. Now if that committee had to choose between two projects which do you think they would pick?

Project A) A bridge in the district of the senator/representative's who is chair of the committee that oversees the funding for that agency.

Project B) A bridge in the district of a freshman senator/representative.

Just because you change the process doesn't take the politics out of it.

Michele Bachmann has lobbied against earmarks.

Yet she lobbies for them.

I expect as much.

Newsflash:

Earmarks comprise a tiny sliver of the budget and eliminating them solves nothing.

Demagouges are cynically using the "earmark ban" so they can appear to show political courage.

"Ban all earmarks" is an example of bumper sticker politics.

Spare me the BS about banning earmarks being a step in right direction.

A step in the right direction involves hard choices.

Buz, in my mind banning earmarks is not a step in the wrong direction. The late Murtha is a perfect example of the "pork" brought home be earmarks. Yes, they are a miniscule part of the overall expenditure by your selected party but that is exactly what is wrong with our government. The parties do not want to start anywhere. You are correct about the "hard choices" part. The Debit Commission chairmen made some very good suggestions. Do you really think either party will accept them? People who have no conception of how well the competitive grant system can work can only denigrade it and all other grant programs, for that matter. An analysis of the worth of an infrastructure project or a community service program such as EMS is much better handled by people who have backround and knowledge of the function than elected politicians who see it as bringing home the bacon to assure their re-election.

I'll see you one John Murtha and raise you Mitch McConnell.

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) | CREW's Most Corrupt Members of Congress

Both were cited as being the most corrupt.

We need solutions not sound bites.

The whole earmark controversy covers up the fact we can't afford Medicare, SS, Military and tax cuts.


It ain't political is arithmetic.

We want it all, we want it now and we want someone else to pay for it.

House and Senate Republicans affirm earmark ban for two years.

House GOP Adopts Earmark Ban for the 112th Congress - The Note

Yeah, but that good ol' Senator Harry Reid has said it isn't going to happen. Why am I not surprised he sides with Buz? OBTW, the last sentence is 100% correct. Not only Medicare, SS, Military, try cutting any welfare program or lowering the number of unemployment days for reimbursement. I would gladly put some of my benefits on the table if I thought others would do the same. The big difference is that I worked hard to receive them. That cannot be said of all.

What good is a two year ban?

Sound bite solutions, rah rah.

Michele B has her own definition, ha ha.

I would gladly put some of my benefits on the table if I thought others would do the same. The big difference is that I worked hard to receive them. That cannot be said of all.

I think across the board cuts that affect everyone are definitely the way to go - mainly because so many think they earned their benefits, but others didn't.

Yeah, but that good ol' Senator Harry Reid has said it isn't going to happen. Why am I not surprised he sides with Buz? OBTW, the last sentence is 100% correct. Not only Medicare, SS, Military, try cutting any welfare program or lowering the number of unemployment days for reimbursement. I would gladly put some of my benefits on the table if I thought others would do the same. The big difference is that I worked hard to receive them. That cannot be said of all.

They can always block legislation in the House the democrats load up with pork, if dems can even get pork in House bills, I'm not sure how that process works. Not sure what happens in the Senate, we'll have to see.

Considering the 112th isn't even in session yet, they're off to a good first step. Time will tell, results matter.

Overall I'm feeling much more relaxed. Independent of all the fiscal issues we face, this last election did wonders for my political nerves. 😀

I think across the board cuts that affect everyone are definitely the way to go - mainly because so many think they earned their benefits, but others didn't.

That was a slap that was undeserved. Many other actually did not earn their benefits. They get them because of their needs and circumstances or because they have learned how to work the system. I will repeat, I did, and I am, along with many others, not ashamed to say so. Oh, and while we are at it, my retired pay is not considered a "benefit", it is considered deferred compensation, not that it of any importance.:sarc:

I think I finally figured out why me and Andy A can't agree on things. He gets benefits, while I'm simply paying into the system that "redistributes my wealth" to him in the form of those benefits.

Oddly in most of these arguments I'm not screaming for tax cuts and dismantling of the US government.

I'll see you one John Murtha and raise you Mitch McConnell.

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) | CREW's Most Corrupt Members of Congress

Both were cited as being the most corrupt.

We need solutions not sound bites.

The whole earmark controversy covers up the fact we can't afford Medicare, SS, Military and tax cuts.


It ain't political is arithmetic.

We want it all, we want it now and we want someone else to pay for it.

strategic default will one day be our foreign policy. it will be born of american greed and obstinance. we will be passed by economically because of our indifference, and our ability to bully and dominate the world militarily will not go unchallenged.

That was a slap that was undeserved. Many other actually did not earn their benefits. They get them because of their needs and circumstances or because they have learned how to work the system. I will repeat, I did, and I am, along with many others, not ashamed to say so. Oh, and while we are at it, my retired pay is not considered a "benefit", it is considered deferred compensation, not that it of any importance.:sarc:

read completely unfunded pension....

That was a slap that was undeserved. Many other actually did not earn their benefits. They get them because of their needs and circumstances or because they have learned how to work the system. I will repeat, I did, and I am, along with many others, not ashamed to say so. Oh, and while we are at it, my retired pay is not considered a "benefit", it is considered deferred compensation, not that it of any importance.:sarc:

It was not a slap - you are just in the mood to read it as such.

One of the biggest issues in balancing the budget is that everyone thinks they earn/deserve their benefits and federally funded projects and others don't. It's only pork if it isn't in your district.

Across the board cuts are the only way to make people see it as "fair."

If I misread the meaning of your post, I apologize. In the same vein, SWGB and Bob are both out of line in reference to any military individual's retired pay. But then, I expect nothing less from either of them. Oh, and Bob, you really are a piece of work.

If I misread the meaning of your post, I apologize. In the same vein, SWGB and Bob are both out of line in reference to any military individual's retired pay. But then, I expect nothing less from either of them. Oh, and Bob, you really are a piece of work.

No problem Andy, I'll stop stating that both active military and veterans deserve more. You have shown me the light and I will push until every veteran is begging on a street corner. :sarc:

Anyhoo - I am guessing from this discussion that we would all support one item on the NYT budget puzzle:

Tighten eligibility for disability The costs of the disability insurance program, which is administrated by the Social Security Administration, have been rising rapidly. This option would cut disability spending by 5 percent by focusing on states with the loosest standards. Supporters note that growing numbers of workers are classified as disabled, though the average job is less physically taxing. Opponents worry that injured or ill workers with few good job prospects would be harmed.

Saves $9 billion by 2015 and $17 billion by 2030.

Anyhoo - I am guessing from this discussion that we would all support one item on the NYT budget puzzle:

Tighten eligibility for disability The costs of the disability insurance program, which is administrated by the Social Security Administration, have been rising rapidly. This option would cut disability spending by 5 percent by focusing on states with the loosest standards. Supporters note that growing numbers of workers are classified as disabled, though the average job is less physically taxing. Opponents worry that injured or ill workers with few good job prospects would be harmed.

Saves $9 billion by 2015 and $17 billion by 2030.

Couldn't agree more and BTW, this also applies to military disability. I also believe there is some need for tightening there as well.

I'm coming in late to this thread, but I don't see anything wrong with someone advocating for their district.

I think the real problem is attaching unrelated earmarks to bills as they progress thru the process.

If what you are advocating for is such a great and deserving thing, it should be submitted as a stand-alone bill and voted on by both houses. That way the spending isn't buried obscurely in some bill. Its all out in the open, debated and voted on and each member's vote is public knowledge.

It would be a lot more interesting if members of Congress had to explain to their constituents why they voted for all of these little spending bills that don't help their own district.

That should slow 'earmark' style spending down a bit.

If all the bills with earmarks were posted online in real time, a million eyes may make a difference.

The people should demand it, it is the 21st century.

Earmakrs have become the rule not the exception. That's the problem. It's an easy way to get funding approved without debate.

Just for clarification, as of the last group of transparency, reform requirements in 2009, all members requests were required to be posted on the members website. If the request wasn't on their website, they would not be considered by the House or Senate's Appropriation Committees. The days of the managers amendments have been over for a couple of years. Not to mention the individual requests were open for discussion at the subcommittee and committee level. I guess my point is that they are available for review by the public every year with no demand needed.