The senators that voted against show they do not care about national debt. These senators need to go http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/290026/earmark-vote-reactions-jack-fowler
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.
What you are saying is ear marks is actually part of the budget These are earmarks http://www.economiccollapse.net/the...ples-of-federal-spending-in-2010#.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.
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/federalbudgetprocess/a/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.
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.
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.
That's because they are. They are a portion of appropriated funds set aside for a specific purpose. If those funds were not earmarked, it would be up to the appropriate federal agencies to decide how the money will be spent. In essence, people pushing for an earmark ban are pushing to have marginally accountable elected officials hand over the power to decide how money will be spent to unaccountable unelected bureaucrats. While this is probably better from a technocratic standpoint (the bureaucrats will certainly do a better job of deciding how it should be used, due to expertise and additional information), it is not so good from an accountability and responsible government standpoint.
It is a curious tendency in American political debate to refer to "the American people" as "special interests." Why is vote buying wrong? Shouldn't a representative or senator be "buying votes" from his constituents by adequately representing their interests in his elected office?
Every machine needs grease. Earmarks are a relatively benign way to grease the wheels of government, so to speak. A congress of nothing but morally opaque ideologues would do nothing while the country fell apart around them.
That's silly. Building an exchange on an interstate certainly ought to include federal dollars, for example. Projects undertaken in order to meet federal mandates ought to be funded, for another example. Plenty of projects ought to receive federal dollars. States rights got trampled because of states' abuse.
Everyone who voted against this should be top of the list for acting against the interest of their people and ensuring some extra padding to their wallets.