Without earmarks, Congress can use phone-marks to feed pet projects Here we go. I was certain that all of the chest thumping over earmarks could only mean there was another, less accountable way of doing the same thing. Got to keep those campaign contributors happy somehow.
Earmarks are a means to move funds into worthwhile small-scale local and regional projects without having to take up scarce calendar time to do it. There is nothing wrong with earmarks. They are effective and efficient. As with so many things, problems can arise in abuse of the earmark process. Substantial advances and expansions of the sunshine measures needed to keep the earmark process honest have been introduced since 2007. There is no reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Republicans (ironically, the ones who did so much to make all that sunshine necessary) are currently grandstanding a non-issue. What else have they got to do? They certainly don't spend much time coming up with any actual ways to help the country or its people.
Well this is one of the rare times I'll take issue with you. I find the republicants spend a great deal of time making sure their contributors are well taken care of.
Politicians circumventing the earmark ban... Despite earmark ban, lawmakers try to give money to hundreds of pet projects November 29,`11 - Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), along with Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), called Tuesday for a permanent end to earmarking. See also: Sens. Toomey, McCaskill stir pot with proposal for permanent earmarks ban 11/29/11 - Sens. Pat Toomey (R-Penn.) and Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) will team up on Wednesday to unveil legislation that would permanently ban earmarks in appropriations bills.