Thread: Earmark ban defeated

The senators that voted against show they do not care about national debt. These senators need to go


http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...ns-jack-fowler

Thirteen Republicans voted against the Toomey ban. One of them was Indiana’s Dick Lugar, who faces a tough primary challenge from conservative state treasurer Richard Mourdock (John Miller’s NR profile can be found here). He drew particular wrath from the Club for Growth:

“Senator Lugar’s vote against a permanent ban on earmarks is typical of a career politician who has been in Washington far too long,” said Club for Growth President Chris Chocola. “The Club for Growth PAC has been closely watching Indiana’s Republican U.S. Senate primary. After Senator Lugar showed his continuing commitment to wasteful pork spending today, we are considering doing more than just watching.”

For the record, joining Lugar in the GOP baker’s dozen were Alexander (Tenn.), Blunt (Mo.), Cochran (Miss.), Collins (Maine), Hoeven (N.D.), Hutchison (Texas), Inhofe (Okla.), Murkowski (Alaska), Roberts (Kan.), Sessions (Ala.), Shelby (Ala.), Wicker (Miss.). Democrats who voted for the ban were Bennett (Colo.), Hagan (N.C.), McCaskill (Mo.), Nelson (Fla.), Stabenow (Mich.), Udall (Colo.), and Warner (Va.). Kirk (R., Ill.), who is ill, did not vote.

Actually, they all need to go. We will never get corruption under control until congress has a single term limit. In the mean time our only hope is to replace all of them at every election.

The idea that earmarks are inherently bad is flawed and simplistic logic. All local projects, be they bridges, roads, schools, or police, which receive federal funding are earmarks. The idea that there is not a single good thing federal dollars can do is simply illogical.

Originally Posted by Charles Julian

The idea that earmarks are inherently bad is flawed and simplistic logic. All local projects, be they bridges, roads, schools, or police, which receive federal funding are earmarks. The idea that there is not a single good thing federal dollars can do is simply illogical.

What you are saying is ear marks is actually part of the budget

These are earmarks

http://www.economiccollapse.net/the-...0#.TzM1ziNQT9w

Originally Posted by ptif219

What you are saying is ear marks is actually part of the budget

These are earmarks

http://www.economiccollapse.net/the-...0#.TzM1ziNQT9w

Those are bad examples, there are also good examples. The point is to reform the process, which is still fractional in the long run, not ban it.

Originally Posted by Charles Julian

Those are bad examples, there are also good examples. The point is to reform the process, which is still fractional in the long run, not ban it.

No I showed earmarks you showed budget items. Bridges are what gas taxes and road taxes are used for

Here are more ear marks

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/federa...porkdecade.htm

Originally Posted by ptif219

No I showed earmarks you showed budget items. Bridges are what gas taxes and road taxes are used for

Here are more ear marks

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/federa...porkdecade.htm

No you're simply wrong. Bridge to nowhere, remember that, that's an earmark. Earmarks are localized spending options outside the standard budget added by particular congressmen based on their personal interests or constituencies.

Originally Posted by Charles Julian

No you're simply wrong. Bridge to nowhere, remember that, that's an earmark. Earmarks are localized spending options outside the standard budget added by particular congressmen based on their personal interests or constituencies.

Did it get built? No it is money to special interests to buy votes

Earmarks make it too easy for congressmen to bribe each other and to buy votes. Cutting them would remove one method that is used to exercise corruption.

Originally Posted by Charles Julian

The idea that earmarks are inherently bad is flawed and simplistic logic. All local projects, be they bridges, roads, schools, or police, which receive federal funding are earmarks. The idea that there is not a single good thing federal dollars can do is simply illogical.

Local projects should never receive federal dollars. In fact, it should be illegal for the federal government to send money to state or local government since they are themselves taxing entities. That is how states rights have been trampled by the federal government.