These days, we hear an awful lot about earmarks and "pork." These have a reputation for being a bad thing and many congressmen who recieve earmarks are given a bad name. This anti-earmark campaign, at first glance, sounds like a good idea. Certainly an altruistic one compared to other political ventures. However, when one begins to think critically, it becomes apparant that this "anti-earmark" campaign is nothing but political jockying and a completely rediculous issue.

What are ear-marks exactly? Ear-marks, sometimes referred to as "pork," are funds that an elected politician secures to make improvements to their congressional district. That is exactly what these congressmen are elected to do. Part of their job, as congressmen, is to serve the people in their district by securing the funds to improve their constituent's lives. To do away with earmarks, as some politicians are suggesting, would be rediculous. To do so would doom the local governments to failure because they would be unable to secure the funds for their respective projects.

Another phrase we hear thrown around a lot is "wasteful spending." In my opinion, there's no such thing. The funds for earmarks are specifically allocated in the congressional budget. The taxpayers are not being "cheated" by having their money being taken from other areas to cover the costs of a local program. All of the earmark money is in a pool for the politicans to fight over and if the funds arn't secured the first time around, they'll try again the next time. Another aspect of wasteful spending is "pork-projects" such as the "bridge-to-nowhere" in Alaska. I'll bet you the people who live on that Island and require the bridge for better access to the mainland don't feel that it's "wasteful spending." Another example from my area is the expansion of Interstate 66. I'm willing to bet that most people throughout the country don't give a rat's ass about I66, however, to the residents of northern Virginia, it is an integral part of our daily commute and expanison is necessecary.

My point is, what is deemed "wasteful spending" is subjective. Hence, why I claim there is no such thing. One of the functions of government, according to Berleson's Democratic Practice and Democratic Theory, is to provide public goods. This would suggest that earmarks are an integral part of the "system" and are necessary.

I urge everyone to think critically the next time a politican or presidential candidate pushes for getting rid of "pork" because is just an empty talking point. "Pork" is subjective and cannot be done away with. Our politicans know that, isn't it time we do to?

__________________
-John Locke

Only if you can't find your ears.

Lol, thank you for continuing my attempt at being apolitical and non-partisan

__________________
-John Locke

I can't help it our gov. had earmarks for our Monorail We will never have.
Earmark monies almost never ends up where they are earmarked for it is a waste of tax payers money.

except those funds are still used to improve the state of the congressional district. And almost never is a fairly broad generalization. You have only one example, and I would feel much comfortable about a statement such as that if some hard data and numbers were given. Assertions such as these must be made from a factual perspective, not just an opinion based upon an anecdote.

__________________
-John Locke

That is why all of our bridges and roads are in need of dire repair?Because the money was used for what?

I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just saying that perhaps there's another explination. Perhaps they still need more funds to begin the project, perhaps they are waiting to schedule the reconstruction for a better time when there won't be as much traffic. Or perhaps they are still in the legal process of writing out contracts for the construction workers.

While yes, you may have the correct explination, there are a multitude of other possible explinations as well.

__________________
-John Locke

__________________
"I want to stay as close to the edge as I can without going over. Out on the edge you see all kinds of things you can't see from the center." - Kurt Vonnegut

The information is out there. Try www.thomas.gov It is the Library of Congresses website and has a record of all the bills and their sponsors/cosponsors/signers and records of who voted yea or nea. This is one of the citizens best resources for checking the government, I'm amazed people don't know about it, much less use it.

__________________
-John Locke

I don't have a problem with state projects, some of which require federal government assistance. I have a problem with the way earmarks have become bartering chips and disguise who supports what in congress.

I don't like them being used at bartering chips. I think if they had to be seperate bills by themselves they would be subject to greater scrutiny and the much-needed items would still get passed. I don't want my congressman/woman voting for or against any legitimate bill because they didn't get their earmark or they don't like someone else's.

It also makes it difficult to tell where our representatives really stand on the issues because it skews their voting record on key issues. In an election year this is even more apparent.

Make them seperate. This wouldn't hurt anything, all lawmakers would have to realize that they have to pass some spending for states or their future propositions wouldn't pass. Quit using earmarks at bartering chips.