So what is wrong with "earmarks"?

Would you rather have Federal money just given to a state with no prerequisites on how it is spent? I believe "earmarks" are a very good thing. It is just that some have been for things most people find frivolous and that has brought condemnation on all "earmarks".

In a rational government, highway projects would be commenced based on need, not based on who needs to get re-elected, or who has contributed the most $$$.

Should be spent on Federal Projects.I was taught,if you can't afford it- don't buy it. Cities,counties,states,private enterprise should raise their own funds.Granted,matching funds should be created for
infrastructure,etc.,but just giving money away for votes ticks me off!

the money being spent, is OK--then we can bitch about it to our Congress critters. Earmarks are not, in and of themselves, bad--it's how a lot of GOOD stuff gets funded. It's also how a lot of STUPID stuff gets funded. That federal money is going to go somewhere, there just needs to be more oversight and controls on it, IMO.

and resent the earmarks that obviously less deserving states get. Politicians get reelected for bringing home the pork and their constituents love them for it while at the same time hating politicians not from their state.

You might have asked what was wrong with the earmark that got the bridge to nowhere going in the first place?

Vote for my bill, I will tag a few million on for your cow chip museum

They are a means for Congress to dictate to the Executive specifically how money will be spent. Earmarks account for a tiny portion of Federal spending. Most of it goes into Federal agencies, where agents of the president decide details of how it will be spent. Some, but not all, earmarks are wasteful, just like spending without earmarks is sometimes bad.

The sudden crocodile tears over earmarks are a GOP power play. This is consistent with Lord Vader's campaign to strengthen the Executive and neuter Congress.

as riders to wholly unrelated legislation. Much of the problem is complete lack of transparancy and inability to debate the particular projects being funded in an amendment to a bill creating a new assistant deputy associate junior postmaster position. Another problem for me is that really kind of smacks of vote-buying.

"Re-elect me and I'll keep bringing home tons of federal money, no matter how much of a hack or completely wrong on the issues you care about I am!"

It's also a part of the quid-pro-quo that goes on in Washington. "I'll vote for your legislation that would help working families if support my massive pork-barrel project (wink-wink, nudge-nudge)."

I think such state or local project currently funded by earmarks should be handled by a bi-partisan committee, holding hearings in the open, much like the Base Closure Committee.

a pork bill - all the pork is in one bill and not hidden as amendments in other bills

I think of earmarks as either proposed or imposed, either merited or unmerited, and as being part of the budget process or off-books.

1. Proposed earmarks are simply line items, specific items, in a budget. Managers always propose such things, and at some point budgets, once approved, consist of earmarks. Projects and parts of projects, programs and the like. Those are developed by those who have a need. Now, those needs are sometimes skewed--the administration may not acquiesce to the planners' department requests and priorities, they may be out of line with what's needed. Imposed earmarks are those that a senator or congressperson decides are to be imposed, regardless of what the managers say. Sometimes a state will request the senator or congressperson to earmark things to prevent the administration from pushing money towards *its* pet projects. So there's a need for the mechanisms. But imposed earmarks aren't all in that category, by any means.

2. One problem is that managers propose a budget as a whole, and when a piece is carved out and put to a project they don't want, it skews their priorities--perhaps the top-rated project is defunded, or smaller essential projects get defunded. You get "your" requested amount, but it doesn't do the trick. A lot of the earmarks, but not all, are simply unmerited--they're for pet projects because of media attention, or lobbyists, or friends of Senator X, or important businesses, or they simply get money for Senator X's state when Senator Y's state really needs more infrastructure improvements.

"Hon, you do such a great job with the $150 I give you each week for the food budget, but I think I want to have filet mignon with truffles on Friday when my boss comes over." "But that'll eat up $120 of it on one meal!" "And I know you'll do a masterful job scouring money from elsewhere for the baby formula!" A bad "I Love Lucy" moment.

3. The earmarks can be imposed as part of the budget process. Then we know they're there. Or they can be attached as riders, buried in other bills. Supposedly that's not done anymore. But it's probably still a going practice. It means that it's hard to track down earmarks. Notice that the *funding* may be approved in a bill according to Hoyle, but it's possible to bury in something completely different a provision saying that $200 million of the highway funds for Maryland have to be committed to painting the Scott Key Bridge pink. No appropriations there: Just a restriction on use.


There's another point. A lot of earmarks are for one-time projects, doling out federal money to projects which deserve money, but not necessarily federal money, at least not outside the usual channels. There are ways to apply for federal funding for projects. Writing to a senator or representative short-circuits the process: It may be a worthy project, but doesn't play by the rules. The earmark process breeds lobbyists; lobbyists produce temptation. Don't like lobbyists? Dispose of earmarks, and you'll see fewer lobbyists.

"earmarks" is just a current buzzword. They will be there as long as Federal money is used for state projects..