Earmarks: Should they stay or should they go?

[usregimechange]

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) co-sponsored an amendment that called for a three-year moratorium on lawmaker-directed funds for pet projects back home. (Manuel Balce Ceneta, Associated Press / November 29, 2010)

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-earmarks-20101201,0,3389568.story

[TheWraith]

1. Depends on how you mean "earmarks."

There are some valid projects that lawmakers can bring to the attention of the federal government. However, I don't think those projects should receive special treatment: the responsible agencies should listen to the lawmaker's case, then decide based on their own internal process whether the money is justified, instead of just automatically giving it to them.

[MadHound]

2. How about other, stop using the earmarks debate as a smokescreen to hide the real issues facing us

Really now, this uproar about less than two percent of the federal budget, approximately 16 billion dollars, is all out of proportion. It is a convenient scapegoat, but in essence little more than hot air.

Besides, if the lawmakers in Congress don't direct those funds in the federal budget, the president does. It's not like we're cutting out that spending, we would simply be deciding that the president gets to dole out those funds, not folks in Congress.

And while yes, we do get bridges to nowhere and other such outrageous projects, by and large those earmarks go to projects that benefit our infrastructure, create jobs, advance science and technology, and better the conditions of people throughout the country.

But hey, let's get all riled up about sixteen billion while voting in 700 billion for more tax cuts for the wealthy. Perhaps the people will get so worked up about the faux issue of earmarks that they'll let those tax cuts slide, again. Better yet, let's let Jeb Bush, Bloomberg, Palin, et al decide where that money goes.

[OHdem10]

3. For the most part, I have become jaded about earmarks. However

in listening to Senate and House there might be some earmarks
might be worthwhile.

It seems to me we could get rid of buying legislative votes
with earmarks. You know, I will give you this if you vote
for that. This just meakes me so angry, I can hardly type.

I think especially of those in our party who vote 76 to 80%
with the Republicans (often against Middle Class interests)
and receive these designated spending items for their state.
Could using Earmarks as payment or rewards for votes, could
we get rid of the practice. This goes for Democrats with my
example. The same goes for Republicans.

If a member really believes an item is important to his/her
home state, then could the member appear before a fair and just
panel and advocate for the designated spending.

If they do not ban them, there are things that could be done
to make them not so objectionable.