Point/ Counter-Point discussion on Earmarks

[DFab420]

In this post you will find both an argument for the banning of earmarks, as well as a counter-point argument to the matter.

I'm not trying to take sides on this one, just trying to flesh out the discussion.

Definition:

Earmarks have been equated to the "pork barrel" legislative process. In which the U.S congress representatives allocate funds already approved for spending to specific pet projects in their states. In the United States legislative appropriations process, Congress is required, by the limits specified under Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution, to pass legislation directing all appropriations of money drawn from the U.S. Treasury. This provides Congress with the power to earmark funds it appropriates to be spent on specific named projects. The earmarking process has become a regular part of the process of allocating funds within the Federal government. (Lifted from Wikipedia @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earmark_%28politics%29)

Argument for Ban:

There are those who view the ban of earmarks as a way to protect government funds from frivolous "pet projects" be Congressman in the pockets of large donors. The Bridge to Nowhere is a perfect example of earmark funding running amok. To ban these earmarks would allow for the Government to have greater transparency and oversight as to where these congressional reps. were spending their monies. It would, in theory, cease the quid pro quo style of paying for votes by earmarks on legislation.

Argument against Ban:

Others have argued that banning earmarks would simply shift the process of fund allocation from the House to the Executive branch of our government. It would in fact give the President power over funds to reward and punish those as he saw fit. While not necessarily true that this would happen, it certainly opens to the door to other problems that are inherent in the way our government doles out the cash.


my own comments

Earmarking is a double sided sword. In March of 2010, the House Appropriations Committee implemented rules to ban earmarks to for-profit corporations. Which in my opinion is the best way to start dealing with the abuse of the earmarking system. If we leave it up to the executive branch, sure right now that would be great to allow President Obama to distribute funding how his progressive (yes it is progressive) agenda saw fit. However, imagine what it would be like if god forbid the was a President Pawlenty?? So my idea is aggressive earmark reform, but congressional reps. should still be the ones making the calls. Again, just my opinion.


*edit for spelling

[napi21]

1. David Sirota pointed this out today when he was fill-in host for Thom

Hartmann. Earmarks are the one way for a State to get new roads, bridges, & many other improvement projects. The President isn't going to go through all the diff. project ideas himself, and if you think the WH appointees are any less susceptible to lobbyists, than Congressmen, I've got a sub prime mortgage to sell you! Also, at least Congrressmen are elected and have to face the vote, good or bad, of their constituints.

i honestly don't know which way i feel about this issue. I can see both sides. I'mleaning toward forbidding any ear mark money from going to sspecific for profit companies and stickwith allowing earmarks to remain.