When my state needs new infrastructure, it's a spending bill. When your state needs new infrastructure, it's an earmark.
I think the reason people hate earmarks isn't really earmarks but the perception of them being used as a bribe and a way to buy the votes of the representatives....
Everything, right now, is all about the fact that most voters have caught on to the way things work in washington, and most of us are pretty appalled.
Earmarks are just symbolic.
But, you guys are right, there's going to have to be a lot done, and the symbolic stuff isn't really going to get us to where we need to go.
To answer your question, I think they're largely re-branded Republicans.
As for earmarks and fiscal conservatism, I think it is odd to focus on earmarks. The only way to reduce the deficit is to make sweeping fiscal cuts, specifically on entitlement programs (though agricultural subsidies and our wars are two obvious companions). Earmarks are a ridiculous thing to focus on. I think the focus by the Republicans on such a insignificant issue is just to project an image of fiscal conservatism, as they know large entitlement cuts are highly unlikely. It's quite dishonest if you ask me. It seems they're just exploiting and taking advantage of the genuine urge for a restraint of fiscal expenditures on part of the citizenry.
As an unrelated point, I think it is an absolutely unwise to think that raising taxes or ceasing to extend the Bush cuts will be beneficial in reducing the national debt. Increased revenues don't go to discharged debts, but go to create new debts. I think it'd be wiser to have taxes lowered.
I agree with you. Opposing earmarks does nothing to help the fiscal situation of the United States. If anything, it might hurt it since earmarks are not inherently bad, and that money might be going to fund some productive state projects and programs.
It is useful for two things, however, it seems. First, it's an innocuous stance that corrupt/cowardly politicians, who don't dare make unpopular cuts but need to come off as fiscally conservative, can take. Second, it's a useful buzzword for people needing to find something that sounds politicky in order to justify their pre-determined decision to hate Obama, the Democrats, and any conservative that seems to be occasionally willing to work with them (i.e. Dick Lugar types).
To answer your question, I think they're largely re-branded Republicans.
As for earmarks and fiscal conservatism, I think it is odd to focus on earmarks. The only way to reduce the deficit is to make sweeping fiscal cuts, specifically on entitlement programs (though agricultural subsidies and our wars are two obvious companions). Earmarks are a ridiculous thing to focus on. I think the focus by the Republicans on such a insignificant issue is just to project an image of fiscal conservatism, as they know large entitlement cuts are highly unlikely. It's quite dishonest if you ask me. It seems they're just exploiting and taking advantage of the genuine urge for a restraint of fiscal expenditures on part of the citizenry.
As an unrelated point, I think it is an absolutely unwise to think that raising taxes or ceasing to extend the Bush cuts will be beneficial in reducing the national debt. Increased revenues don't go to discharged debts, but go to create new debts. I think it'd be wiser to have taxes lowered.
ImSoAnarchist wrote:To eliminate all earmarks would be to further consolidate power in the already dominant executive branch and not save a penny.
Why didn't anybody bother to tell this to the Tea Party in the past few months? Could've saved them a lot of wasted energy in railing and frothing.
We all know that politicians lie, and no intelligent person expected the spend-happy Republicans to suddenly become a bunch of Silas Marners.
So the real test is in the Tea Party. Will they even give a damn about this blatant reneging on the part of their leaders? Does the Tea Party actually have principles? Or is it in actuality are they just re-branded Republicans who will vote for anybody who claims to stand against their hated blood clan, the Demmycrats?
My understanding is earmarks are not a very large share of the pie and as ridiculous as some of them sound, eliminating them all isn't going to have a huge financial impact on our budget, anyway
I wish I had a dime for every time I hear this. It does matter, every little bit counts. Our Gov. should cut wherever possible.
If you're a strong fiscal conservative, then yes, that's true.
However, it looks a tad hypocritical when you market yourself as a rabid pennypincher yet the only cuts you have the stones to make are insigificant little less-than-1% cuts, while leaving huge chunks of the federal budget untouched.
Unfortunately, politicians usually aren't elected in the first place if they don't know how to play the game. It's a self-selected group from the outset.
My understanding is earmarks are not a very large share of the pie and as ridiculous as some of them sound, eliminating them all isn't going to have a huge financial impact on our budget, anyway
I wish I had a dime for every time I hear this. It does matter, every little bit counts. Our Gov. should cut wherever possible.
I've heard it said that most politicians go into office with lofty ideas and ideals. Then, the political process erodes their "values," and they end up more -or-less like everyone else, past and present.
I work with a gentleman who was one of our state senators and have had many talks with him about this. He says before you get into office you perceive it will be a certain way but the reality is much different. It's all about wheeling and dealing and political favors and your choices are to go along with it (to some degree) or get out. A politican who won't play the game ends up getting nothing accomplished, ever. The question is how skillful you are at playing the game while still maintaining some of your values. That is why, imo, Presidents generally end up governing more from the center than their supporters would like. It's the only way to get anything done.
ImSoAnarchist wrote:In other words, when a designation request makes it into the budget, it subtracts funds out of what is available to the executive branch and bureaucrats in various departments, and targets it for projects that the people and their representatives request in their districts. If a congressman does not submit funding requests for his district the money is simply spent elsewhere. To eliminate all earmarks would be to further consolidate power in the already dominant executive branch and not save a penny. If that is true (and I have no reason to believe it's not) then a politician would be a fool not to request funds. Why would you sit around and watch others divvy up the pie and not request something for your constituents? You would be perceived as not doing your job.
My understanding is earmarks are not a very large share of the pie and as ridiculous as some of them sound, eliminating them all isn't going to have a huge financial impact on our budget, anyway. It just makes for a good sound bite.
...and they end up more -or-less like everyone else, past and present.
This is what helps me to ‘keep the faith’ in America. One can only hope this is true. I'm sick with Nimrods and their ridiculously inflated and self-aggrandizing ideas and ideals –no matter what their politics. Such Nimrods should seek employ in poetry... pop-songs and snappy jingles. And visa versa for song writers and poets: tell me how you feel and hurt but don’t tell me that your misfortune is equal to the world’s or America’s good or bad standing.
-- Edited by Woodwork on Friday 3rd of December 2010 06:32:44 AM
I've heard it said that most politicians go into office with lofty ideas and ideals. Then, the political process erodes their "values," and they end up more -or-less like everyone else, past and present.
Yes, becuase politicians always represent their constituents' idiology perfectly. Gosh I adore dishonesty in the name of partisanship.
But just to let you all know, the total level of spending for any given bill is determined by the Congressional leadership and the appropriators before any Member has a chance to offer any amendments. Members’ requests are simply recommendations to allocate parts of that spending for certain items in that members’ district or state. If funds are not designated, they revert to non-designated spending controlled by bureaucrats in the executive branch.
In other words, when a designation request makes it into the budget, it subtracts funds out of what is available to the executive branch and bureaucrats in various departments, and targets it for projects that the people and their representatives request in their districts. If a congressman does not submit funding requests for his district the money is simply spent elsewhere. To eliminate all earmarks would be to further consolidate power in the already dominant executive branch and not save a penny.
Apparently the Tea Party Congressmembers oppose earmarks-- for others, but not for themselves.
Members of the Congressional Tea Party Caucus may tout their commitment to cutting government spending now, but they used the 111th Congress to request hundreds of earmarks that, taken cumulatively, added more than $1 billion to the federal budget.
The article is not clear on whether the billion dollars is the total of the earmarks requested by Tea Party Caucus members, or the total of earmarks actually successfully enacted into law.
