Earmarks?

[Rustic23]

Ok,
If we can let's not make this one political! I don't care who had the most, or least or what they are for!

Here is the question: On a FOX news report the following quote "Everybody hates earmarks till they are in their district, and then they are for them", are you against them?

I'm against earmarks, weather they are in my district or not.

The problem, evidently, is how earmarks came about. Seems like when Congress passes a budget item like health and welfare, it is the President that determines where the money actually goes. Congress started 'earmarking' funds so that the President would have to spend the money in their district or for their project.


So would you vote for a politician that pledged not to earmark funds, and to vote against all others?

 

[Caoineag]

In theory I am against them which is why I loved the line item veto. Unfortunately earmarks exist as bribes to get people to agree to vote on other things that I care about. So it makes it hard to get rid of them. A politician who always votes down earmarks would also end up voting down every piece of legislation that came to congress.

So I would vote for a politician who pledged to help pass legislation that would do away with earmarks (i.e., rule in congress that says you have to vote on items individually so you can't tack extras on).

 

[Texas Proud]

Rustic...

It is of no matter how they came about... but what they are today...

IF each and every one was voted on and not just added to a bill without any vote... then maybe it would be doing what it was intended.. now, it is just a way to get money to your district without having to get an up or down vote..

I am against them all unless voted on by the full House and/or Senate.

 

[samclem]

Against them all.
At the very least, the legislator sponsoring the earmark and a clear "time stamp" should be included on each one indicating when and how it got inserted. That would add a lot of transparency to the process and help assure that they all get identified and highlighted before being voted on. We've had several cases where pork has been inserted in innocuous places and, given the huge heft of the legislation, it wasn't even noticed until the whole bloated package was approved. Later it was hard to even identify when each got inserted and if it was legit. A date/time "stamp" and "whodunit" on each pork bit would at least make it possible to quickly ID the new pork.

IIRC, the new Congressional leaders had pledged to do away with earmarks, or at least identify authors. I think that was one of the reforms that went away after the election was over.