Earmarks - There's a better way to bring home the bacon!!

[Don_1967]

It is hard to read this NY Times articlehttp://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/washington/26earmarks.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5094&en=dccc64e117170051&hp&ex=1164517200&adxnnl=0&partner=homepage&adxnnlx=1164488519-8uylFQg7kfJhzXY9exoLwg about appropriations and earmarks and not get at least a little agitated.

The bi-partisan collusion to manipulate the allocation of public funds is deep in the DNA of any legislature. Gaining control of the treasury is essentially the point of winning office. The Blue Dogs have a tough fight ahead of them. Unless they can change the geometry of the problem.

Instead of trying to stop earmarks perhaps we just alter the process. We have already heard about the idea of increasing transparency by requiring that all earmarks be identified by the sponsor. But how about this idea as well:

Consider giving each Representative a budget based on population so they can bring home the bacon without being covert about it. Then they become responsible for how they want to allocate it to their district, within some reasonable limits.

A further calculation could be based on how much federal money their district is already getting. If it is below, or above, average perhaps there is an adjustment to the pork budget for that Representative.

All of us get a little crazy when someone wants to take power away from us. And this approach allows us to gently reduce the corrupting influence on how our representatives vote on our behalf.

[pitohui]

1. "a budget based on population"

i can think of no better way of suddenly guaranteeing that every representative out there will suddenly become totally opposed to women's right to safe abortion and access to birth control

[originalpckelly]

2. Don't they try to structure it so that all the districts have an equal number of residents?

:shrug: