AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@realjohnboy,

realjohnboy wrote:

Earmarks are, arguably, pocket change. The estimates I have seen put the number at $16Bn a year.

16 billion pocket change ? Perhaps not huge, but if we can't win the smaller budget battles, then we've lost the budget war. Incredibly, Obama's 2010 budget is 3.55 Trillion, but 16 billion still computes to almost 1/2 of 1% of that total, which is significant enough to make a small difference. To provide an example, it would be almost $10 in a $2,000 budget. If my household expenses are $2,000 per month, I certainly think saving $10 per month by changing my phone plan or buying less potato chips and pop on grocery buying days, things like that, would certainly be worth doing and they are typical choices that have to be made for households. I think the same principle should apply to government..

2 Replies

@okie,

I agree, Georgeob and Okie. What really irks me about earmarks/pork is how they get inserted into must pass legislation anonymously without specifics as to what is being funded. "An amendment to fund a demonstration project for a left-handed redneck with 2 oak trees in his front yard and a 30-lb dog 1/2 mile from a volunteer fire department."

1 Reply

@realjohnboy,

I agree as well.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob, It isn't going to work; the congress' performance ratings have been in the dumps for decades, and they still play those games. They're both guilty, and should be fired!

0 Replies

Eliminating Congress's "pocket change" spending is just step 1.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

realjohnboy wrote:
Earmarks are, arguably, pocket change. The estimates I have seen put the number at $16Bn a year.

16 billion pocket change ? Perhaps not huge, but if we can't win the smaller budget battles, then we've lost the budget war. Incredibly, Obama's 2010 budget is 3.55 Trillion, but 16 billion still computes to almost 1/2 of 1% of that total, which is significant enough to make a small difference. To provide an example, it would be almost $10 in a $2,000 budget. If my household expenses are $2,000 per month, I certainly think saving $10 per month by changing my phone plan or buying less potato chips and pop on grocery buying days, things like that, would certainly be worth doing and they are typical choices that have to be made for households. I think the same principle should apply to government..

Yes, but cutting earmarks doesn't lower the amount of money spent in that budget. At all. It doesn't end $16 billion in spending.

It's fair to say that it could keep that amount from going up; but what it really does is let the admin decide where the money is going.

I don't have any problem with anti-earmark legislation, but the amount of ignorance as to what earmarks ARE and how limiting them will affect the bottom line is a little staggering.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I don't have any problem with anti-earmark legislation, but the amount of ignorance as to what earmarks ARE and how limiting them will affect the bottom line is a little staggering.

Cycloptichorn

I don't see any indication of ignorance with respect to the facts among the posters here. Where do you find this "staggering ignorance"??

1 Reply

Putting any effort into cutting earmarks is a total waste of time.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I don't have any problem with anti-earmark legislation, but the amount of ignorance as to what earmarks ARE and how limiting them will affect the bottom line is a little staggering.

Cycloptichorn

I don't see any indication of ignorance with respect to the facts among the posters here. Where do you find this "staggering ignorance"??

Well, in your and Okie's posts, for one. Both of you refer to the 'pocket change' total of what earmarks add up to, but neither seem to realize that ending earmarks doesn't lower the total amount spent. At least, nothing you wrote indicates that you realize this.

Then again, recent events in the other thread have proven that you don't remember much of what you write from one post to another, and regularly forget today arguments you made just yesterday. So why am I even bothering to look for logic or consistency?

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Do you believe the late rep. John Murtha's private airport would have been built in the normal course of events without the earmarks that did it? What about the ship canal I noted above in Louisiana? It, in fact, diverted appropriations to the Corps of Engineers that would otherwise (probably) gone to the scheduled upgrade of the levees. Consider also the earmarks involved in the payoffs to Senators fron Nebraska and Louisiana for their votes in favor of the Health Care legislation. Do you believe they beneffitted anyone, even including the Democrats?

Do you believe the Congress is held in high esteem for its ethics and attention to the public good by most Americans?

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Well, Cyclo, I guess you need to lump me in with Okie and Georgeob. If a member of Congress adds (earmarks) $1 via amendment to a $200 piece of legislation that passes, the total is not $201? Instead it is still $200 but with $1 going towards the earmark. Are you sure?

3 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Do you believe the late rep. John Murtha's private airport would have been built in the normal course of events without the earmarks that did it? What about the ship canal I noted above in Louisiana? It, in fact, diverted appropriations to the Corps of Engineers that would otherwise (probably) gone to the scheduled upgrade of the levees.

Right. I don't know about Murtha's airport - don't know enough about the background - but was that money carved out of a larger piece of legislation, or what is ADDED to a piece of legislation? Banning earmarks stops the second from happening but not the first.

I wouldn't bet on anything done at the Federal level actually having a meaningful effect on the local level in New Orleans, so who can say for sure what would have happened?

Quote:

Consider also the earmarks involved in the payoffs to Senators fron Nebraska and Louisiana for their votes in favor of the Health Care legislation.

I would note that these weren't done in secret and that these carve-outs didn't survive to the final bill. Do you not remember that fact? I don't support trickery by Congressmen or anyone - at all - but it's hardly a national emergency. There are about 50 ways to cut spending that would be more effective than attacking earmarks...

Quote:

Do you believe the Congress is held in high esteem for its ethics and attention to the public good by most Americans?

Not at all; but attacking Earmarks doesn't solve the basic problems with Congress, not even a little. It's focusing on some bullshit instead of the massive fraud which goes on regularly, and then clapping yourselves on the back over it.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@realjohnboy,

Not only that, but "some" of those earmarks are a waste of money that have no practical cost/benefit to them. I think they're a crime of the first order.

0 Replies

@realjohnboy,

realjohnboy wrote:

Well, Cyclo, I guess you need to lump me in with Okie and Georgeob. If a member of Congress adds (earmarks) $1 via amendment to a $200 piece of legislation that passes, the total is not $201? Instead it is still $200 but with $1 going towards the earmark. Are you sure?

Yeah, pretty sure. Per wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earmark_%28politics%29 - Earmarks are traditionally instructions to certain departments directing a specified amount of money from an agency's budget to be spent on a particular project.

ARE these earmarks being used to raise the overall amount spent? In some cases, it's possible. But it certainly isn't most of them and I'd be surprised if it was many at all. And why should it be? If the budget for, say, Health and Human Services is 47 billion dollars a year, it's not hard to jam in a few million dollars of Pork in without forcing a new budget, allocating a higher amount to that agency, to be passed.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

In most cases earmarks don't add to appropriations, but rather direct specific actions that would not otherwise be taken under the governing legislation passed by the Congress - that's why they are done. As I noted an earmark a decade ago in Louisiana contributed both directly and indirectly to the disaster following hurricane Katrina there. You should familiarize yourself with Murtha's airport - it is an egregious model for many other like actions taken by Congressmen.

If you want some entertainment, check out Rep. Barbara Lee's website for her earmarks to every sympathetic social group in the East Bay. Such corruption starts small and ends up very large indeed.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Thanks. I do note that the Wiki article has various "citations needed" footnotes regarding the costs of earmarks. As my German speaking grandmother with no formal education who spent her life running a dairy farm in Wisconsin used to say, "That is one thing I didn't know."

1 Reply

@realjohnboy,

realjohnboy wrote:

Thanks. I do note that the Wiki article has various "citations needed" footnotes regarding the costs of earmarks. As my German speaking grandmother with no formal education who spent her life running a dairy farm in Wisconsin used to say, "That is one thing I didn't know."

Yah, there are several statements there that do need citation.

However, I don't think that this changes the underlying fact that 'cleaning up' the 16 billion per-year Earmark market just doesn't lead to 16 billion in savings. I doubt it even leads to 1 billion in savings at the end of the day.

At the same time, Defense department appropriations, farm subsidies, subsidies to big business, and outright fraud are far more prevalent and would have a much greater impact on the bottom line.... but I don't see any Republican (and hardly any Dems) lining up to take on the REAL problems with waste in our government.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Here's a link on Citizens Against Government Waste:
http://membership.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_pigbook2006

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

The number of earmarks and the monies involved have increased by a factor of more than seven over the past decade - what was once a truly negligable problem has grown (and will likely continue to grow) into a massive patronage system for elected legislators enabling more of them (from both parties) to become career legislators, therebyreducing the responsiveness of the legislature to the wishes of the public that elects them. Moreover such earmarks fundamentally corrupt the expressed intent of the Congress in enacting the authorization and appropriations bills which they redirect for individual purposes. This enables some to posture publicly on key votes but still get something for their district or state that flies in the face of their public positions, and encourages majority party leaders (and their Committee Chairmen) to bribe individual Congressmen for their votes. The increasingly systematic nature of such earmarks is proving itself to involve more temptation than the venal crowd of our legislators can endure. I can see very little that is good come out of it and much that is undesirable and corrupting.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

In the same vane I wonder why congress has such a low performance rating by the general public? Have they been doing the work of the people, or for their self-interest to get re-elected by catering to the big money corporations who donate to their campaign?

Earmarks matter.

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know