Tea Partiers vs. GOP on Earmarks: A Sucker's Debate

. David, Do we all agree spending MUST BE CURTAILED? I am not in favor of this financial game of chicken not just this administration but many before it continued until we have the fiscal meltdown this course leasds to. How can the tea party people be faulted for this. I will remind our liberal friends, that in spite of your best attempts to discount the tea party,they are genuine and grassroot. They are not going away because they see the writing on the financial wall..... You seem to fault them because they have identified earmarks as a starting place and a symptom of the bigger overspending disease. The problems are bigger than earmarks, S.S. MEDICARE,MEDICAIDE,but to correct these sacre cow's financial condition will take a sustained and constant pressure but addressed these must be. All those who have faced bankruptcy surely would not wish this on this country.Then programs of all type to benefit the public will be nonexistant and moot.

Obama wanted to get rid of ear-marks, what happened you Rep went after him. MAKE UP YOUR MINDS.

Hello David, I don't believe the goal of reducing earmarks is strictly economic, in which case, I'd agree with you in saying it's far too much of a fight, for not much pay-off. No, I believe the intent of the Tea Party addressing the issue of earmarks is to stop influencing the vote (for the bill that is, not the earmark... aka, the job they ARE being paid to do). POLITICIAN CONTEMPLATING OH... LETS SAY IT'S THE AMERICAN REINVESTMENT & RECOVERY ACT: "Hmm, get a free bridge, some roadwork, and probably a re-election because my constituents save 4 minutes on average for their morning commute, in trade for signing off on a bill I haven't even read yet? Ooooh, that's a tuffy, we'll never pay that off! Oh wait, Obama said I have to do it NOW, so yeah, I can always go ahead and claim I was pressured! So I just followed my leadership! Yeah! That doesn't sound so guilty, right? My political ad agency can spin that, right? That doesn't sound QUITE SO irresponsible... uh... well, I guess if I want to stay in the good graces of the party, and get some DNC/RNC (makes ZERO diff, imho) money next year, ooh, and that BRIDGE (gotta call my big contractor buddies hehe)... OKAY!" The law maker has much more incentive to follow the party, than he does to represent those he was elected by. If he sells the American people down the road to insolvency, he is then most likely to have a continued career in politics because THE MONEY he receives ensures his tele-omnipotence back at home, popularity, and necessary financing for re-election(s). The American people are beginning to awaken to the fact that PAC's, corporate financing, favors, and the general disregard for The Constitution, nearly without exception, IS "the way things get done" in DC. It's about making politicians vote for what PEOPLE want, not for their own agendas/preservation/relevence/power/re-election. Turn-over is a healthy part of politics and the last election tells us that Americans are ready for true change, not an accelleration of the same thing. Further, fifty million dollars for a bridge isn't much, but a slice of it should have been in the American family's pocket. The single mom's pocket, the college kid's pocket. Not building some ornate bridge for a town that doesn't REALLY NEED it. If they did, they'd find a VOTED UPON way to fund it themselves.

If those politicians couldn't earmark all that money to their state maybe they would vote for a lower spending bill or non at all. Maybe if the appointed agencies that are created, and manned by people with knowledge in their areas of expertise could spend the money more effectively, and quit wasting our taxes on useless projects enhancing the wallets of their campaign contributors back home. Maybe if earmarks were eliminated powerful politicians couldn't keep getting reelected only because they keep delivering our taxes to their state as a form of campaign funding for the incumbent.

say i am a senator and dont like a piece of legislation say of 50 million dollars.but they need my vote to pass it.so we earmark 3 million out of the 50 for my state.i vote for it and it becomes law.why not make the bill 47 million and screw the earmark????basically just a bribe so to speak.how much can we save by e,iminating thes bribes er i mean earmarks??????

say if i am a senator and oppose a 50 million dollar piece of legislation.i will vote against it.but if all of a sudden they need my vote out of the 50 million dollar bill i might be able to get 2 of the original 50 i will sign the bill.why not make the original bill 48 and not screw around.these are just incentives to vote for it.a bribe if you will.how much could we save if this didnt occur????????????????????????

David, you lost my earlier post, when this article was first posted, so I'll say it again: you have to start somewhere. Just because maggots are small and not very dangerous is no reason to keep them around. Earmarks and pork have to go. It's a symbolic culture of coruption that must end. Every journey begins with...

Sorry Mr. Corn but it's about the Constitution I cannot find "earmarks" any where in the constitution or the bill of right's. It does however, state in article 1 sec.9 ..."No preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or revenue to the ports one state over those of another" .....No money shall be drawn from the Treasury ,but in consequence of Appropriations made by law, and a regular statement and account of the receipts and ALL Expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time. So lets have a list of all the earmarks that are used to favor the "votes for sale" crowd.

Ear marks, A turtle bridge, a study on why is dark in bars, Millions for an airport that has 2 flights a week. The list is so long I could type for hours to list them all. Earmarks are used to buy votes on larger issues. You want money put it to a vote on each issue. Do not pig back them on other bills.

I don't know about earmarks in every Department and for every recipient, but with respect to the Department of Defense and small businesses, the Research Development, Testing & Evaluation (RDT&E) earmarks in the DOD budget that went to several thousand small businesses (approximately $3 billion) in the past proved to be the most productive with respect to insertion of new technology, innovation for the Warfighter and job creation in the US. One needs to realize that if the funds are not earmarked, the money will not be saved, it will stay with the DOD Program Manager (PM) who usually gives it to the same entities he gives it to every year or, more often, just transfers it to the residing prime contractor (e.g. General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, BAE, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, etc.) as a general engineering slush fund, no scrutiny, no firm deliverables, cost plus contract, the works ...