An earmark by any other name would smell so sweet

[scooterbug44]

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.

 

[Andy A]

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.

 

[futurebeachbum]

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.

 

[beachFool]

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.

 

[AndrewG]

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

 

[BeachSiO2]

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.

 

[Andy A]

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.

BeachSiO2, thank you for the clarification. I did not know this and really appreciate the information. I consider myself fairly astute in following the workings of government but as I said, I was unaware of this provision. But then, I seriously doubt that at least 98% of the general public were either. And therein lies the problem. Its one of those hidden in plain sight things that go on in the federal government.

 

[BeachSiO2]

Andy, I agree with you. It is definitely something that I wish more people knew. If you are interested in earmark reform, search for Senator Inhofe's bill he introduced on 11/15. It is S. 3939. There are two things that I like about the bill. First, it's short and is in English that we can all understand, Two, the ideas are supported by not only Taxpayers for Common Sense (and like minded groups) and the lobbying industry. I think that's good as it means there is a chance it may be passed and would address a number of ills associated with the entire system. If someone will PM me on how to attach a pdf, I will put the speech Inhofe gave when introducing the bill. It's pretty interesting.

 

[Bob]

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.

you are no better than us, you just think you are.

 

[Bob]

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.

Pension funding: America's most generous public pension | The Economist That's not counting a lifetime of free medical care from the VA. And the military doesn't have a pension fund; the Pentagon budget's $18 billion in retiree pay this year will be paid directly by taxpayers.....you Andy, are full of yourself, are self righteous, and on this subject, are ill informed.