Earmarks

I agree with Jim DeMint in this article. I am all for a 2-year ban on earmarks.

Republicans are conflicted over earmarks ban

I am surprised to see Rand Paul already backtrack on his earmark ban. This is why I don't think that voting out politicians matter. Once they are in the corrupt system, they just go with the flow. Doesn't matter if they are Dem or Rep. At the same time, the congressmen are sent to represent their constituents and if they can get a favorable earmark, then that is better for who they represent.

I think Rand Paul has backtracked on his backtracking.

Agree with 2 year ban and to abolish "holds" or at least make them public by senators.

Agree with 2 year ban and to abolish "holds" or at least make them public by senators. Originally Posted by catnipdipper

I would just like to see what effects a 2 year ban would have. They say earmarks only make up one percent of expenditures, but that may be 1% they can get rid of for the taxpayers. I cannot remember right off hand the name of the Democrat ex-congressman, but he passed away in the last year and I believe he had a history of pork barrel earmarks for his district. Again, that is great for his district, but bad for the country. Plus, 1% is a start.

Papa you are thinking about the late Senator Byrd of West Virgina.

Papa you are thinking about the late Senator Byrd of West Virgina. Originally Posted by dirty dog

Thanks DD, that's exactly who I was referring to in the above post.

You could also be talking about John Murtha of PA.

That is when he was not accusing our soldiers of being "jack-booted stormtroopers".

You could also be talking about John Murtha of PA.

That is when he was not accusing our soldiers of being "jack-booted stormtroopers". Originally Posted by john_galt

No Corky, I said it was Sen. Byrd in the previous post, but you just wanted to take a jab at a decorated U.S. Marine that has passed away. I hope you feel good about yourself. Any other veterans you want to take a shot at while you're at it? If you want to take a shot at deceased veterans, maybe you should consider starting your own thread.

You could also be talking about John Murtha of PA.

That is when he was not accusing our soldiers of being "jack-booted stormtroopers". Originally Posted by john_galt

The reason to ban earmarks is not because they are a large portion of the budget, as stated earlier they only account for about one percent. But they are used to buy someone's vote in order to get bad legislation passed. TARP had to be loaded up with earmarks in order to get enough people to vote for it. Obamacare had the same problem with Harry Reid adding sweetheart deals to get wavering senators to support it. Take this tool away from Congress and perhaps less corrupt legislation will be proposed.

The reason to ban earmarks is not because they are a large portion of the budget, as stated earlier they only account for about one percent. But they are used to buy someone's vote in order to get bad legislation passed. Originally Posted by jac01

Great point. I didn't even think about it in that aspect. Of course course it doesn't completely stop buying a congressman's vote because of lobbying...which is a whole other topic of debate.