Earmarks

[clover]

Rather than cut old people's social security benefits maybe the new Congress can find an easy way to cut 16.5 billion worth of mindless spending, re-paying campaign contributions, pork instead.

http://www.cagw.org/newsroom/releases/2010/earmark-spending-165.html

http://www.cagw.org/reports/pig-book/2010/oinkers.html

We'll see how the new and imroved, lower taxes, reduce spending Congress deals with this one...............don't hold your breath.

[deadserious]

Earmarks are the least dangerous of all government spending as they are the most transparent.  We know how much it is, what it is for and who requested it.  I'm all for reducing earmarks, but it's far more important to kill programs and cut funding to programs that spend our money behind closed doors.

[ragman]

ds, I hate earmarks as much as any American but you are correct.  They are chump change compared to some of the financial moves going on.   

[clover]

Like what?  What has Beck told you now?  LOL! 

Earmarks are good if the earmarks are going to pay for campaign contributions for your preferred party........they're really bad if they go to pay for campaign contributions from the heathen party

16 billion would go a long ways towards reducing the deficit if it wasn't in the budget for 20 years.

[deadserious]

16 Billion is 1.5% of the budget.  There are a lot of other places to start cutting.

I would actually prefer that 100% of the budget be required to be earmarks.  At least in that case it would be transparent and we would know where the money is going and who sent it there.

[clover]

The Repubes are proposing 100 billion in budget cuts in 2011....so lets take 100 bil out of defense, eliminate 16 bil in earmarks and they'd be 16% ahead of the curve.........................like that's gonna happen.

someone has to tell me what is being spent behind closed doors....i'm missing the news.

[deadserious]

The Repubes are proposing 100 billion in budget cuts in 2011....so lets take 100 bil out of defense, eliminate 16 bil in earmarks and they'd be 16% ahead of the curve.........................like that's gonna happen.

Like I said, I'm not opposed to cutting them, but your example just proves my point that there are much bigger fish to fry.

someone has to tell me what is being spent behind closed doors....i'm missing the news.

Well, you have earmarks and you have federal funding.  Earmarks are specific and direct funding at the request of a congressman for a particular purpose.  For example... Congressman Smith earmarks 100 million to furnish condos for former Bear Stearns employees.  This is completely transparent and accountable.  Anyone who thinks that this is a bad idea knows exactly who to approach, picket or run against in the next election.

Federal Funding on the other hand is a lump sump allocation to a generic purpose.  Once that lump sum is allocated, unelected masters of red tape pass the money through multitudes of hands before it ever reaches it's intended purpose.  The spending decisions along that path are completely unaccountable and hidden... and if you wanted to run against the person who made those decisions you are sol.  And good luck getting hired as their replacement.

[deadserious]

16 Billion is 1.5% of the budget.  There are a lot of other places to start cutting.

Actually it's 0.45%.  Silly me I misremembered the actual 2010 budget.

[clover]

So you're talking about the TARP funds?  Foreign Aid?  Iraq re-construction funds?   Federal funding like that?

[deadserious]

So you're talking about the TARP funds?  Foreign Aid?  Iraq re-construction funds?   Programs like that?

all excellent examples.  But I would also include funds for HUD, Department of Education, Homeland Security, Department of Agriculture, Department of the Treasury, Department of Justice, Department of Veterans Affairs and thousands of other wasteful agencies that see pennies of every dollar trickle into the hands of the people they intend to support.

[clover]

16 Billion is 1.5% of the budget.  There are a lot of other places to start cutting.

Actually it's 0.45%.  Silly me I misremembered the actual 2010 budget.

So over a 10 year period earmarks have equaled at least 4.5% of today's budget...or 165 billion that could have went to a more needier cause than wood utilization or beef research?  You know damn well some donor in either of those industries got their r and d paid for by the government for votes and support...........but that's ok....at least the theft is transparent.....

[deadserious]

So over a 10 year period earmarks have equaled at least 4.5% of today's budget...or 165 billion that could have went to a more needier cause than wood utilization or beef research?  You know damn well some donor in either of those industries got their r and d paid for by the government for votes and support...........but that's ok....at least the theft is transparent.....

I'm just saying I prefer the theft that I can see and therefore hold accountable to the theft being done behind my back and in secret by people we will never be able to judge for their actions.

[clover]

So you're talking about the TARP funds?  Foreign Aid?  Iraq re-construction funds?   Programs like that?

all excellent examples.  But I would also include funds for HUD, Department of Education, Homeland Security, Department of Agriculture, Department of the Treasury, Department of Justice, Department of Veterans Affairs and thousands of other wasteful agencies that see pennies of every dollar trickle into the hands of the people they intend to support.

I'm getting it now...it's the Sharron Angle approach.  You pass the VA over to private companies who rip us a new asshole, raise the cost of care and bill the government...............then we tell the private companies "stop ripping us off"...then they send 30 private jets to the white house and negotiate a deal where they're allowed to rip us off for 4 more years if we give them some generous concessions...........geez kinda sounds like Obamacare

[deadserious]

I never once said the P word.  We were talking about earmarks and how earmark transparency would be better than funding.

Use the VA as an example.  Under a funding system, if a congressman is unhappy with the conditions at a VA hospital, the congress votes to increase the funding for the VA by 15% in hopes that the money will be spent in a way that improves the conditions accordinly.  By the time money makes it to the hospitals, they receive 2 cents for every dollar of that 15% that might have been allocated for that purpose.

However, under an earmark system...  Congressman Smith believes that conditions at xyz hospital are unacceptable and earmarks 10 million for improvements.  In two years, the news follows up on the hospital to see that there were or were not 10 million of improvements actually made.  When it is found that Congressman Smith's brother in law was the contractor on the deal and repairs were only partially completed, Congressman Smith's constituents can fire his ass.

[clover]

What I see in your thinking is the difference between America and Belize.

Covert politics:
In America the politicians tell how what they're going to do with our money....and when we find out that they lied and ripped us off...................................................4 years later we get pissed off and put another one just like the last one in his chair.

Overt politics:
In Belize they just tell you they're going to rip you off and save the 4 years of waiting