Quote:
Originally Posted by Aladdin Sane
The argument is not about worthwhile projects. If a project is worth funding with public money, it should be worth publicly debating. The earmarks that concern me are those pet projects that are secretly inserted into the 1000 page U.S. budget. If a project has merit, why hide it? All I want is some transparency.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seaver
Earmarks are NOT parks and services. Those can be voted on and justified on their own grounds.
Earmarks are the $50million dollars in pig subsidies or the preverbial bridge to no-where which get attached to Armor for Troops bills.
|
Aladdin and Seaver...you have bought into the rhetoric.
There is no such thing as a 1000 page US budget that is reviewed, adopted and signed as one piece of legislation...and most (over 95%) earmarks are not inserted into supplement war funding (Armor for Troops) bills.
The vast majority of earmarks (by the most commonly accepted definition) are for projects requested by a state/local official and
included in one of the 13 annual appropriation bills by the member of Congress from that state/district and reviewed by the respective House/Senate committee for that particular appropriation bill. These are all reasonably transparent, if you have the time and interest. Members are generally required to submit their earmark requests in appropriation bills at least 2 days in advance of a floor vote
as a result of the earmark reform enacted by the Democratic Congress in 2007.. The "reform" doesnt go far enough, but it was a step in the right direction for transparency.
A relatively small number of earmarks (about 5% by most estimates) are of the "midnight" variety that show up in supplemental bills (bills for emergency funding that was not anticipated in the appropriation process) at the point past committee review. I agree these should be eliminated, but they are such a small number of all earmarks that it is more hype than substance.
-----Added 21/1/2009 at 11 : 52 : 16-----
Explanation of earmarks from the Congressional Research Service:
Quote:
Earmarks and limitations are two devices regularly used in annual appropriations acts to direct and restrict, respectively, the availability of funds for specified activities.
There is not a single specific definition of the term earmark accepted by all practitioners and observers of the appropriations process, nor is there a standard earmark practice across all 13 regular appropriations bills. According to the Congressional Quarterly’s American Congressional Dictionary, under the broadest definition “virtually every appropriation is earmarked.” In practice, however, earmarks are generally defined more narrowly, often reflecting procedures established over time that may differ from one appropriation bill to another. For one bill, an earmark may refer to a certain level of specificity within an account. For other bills, an earmark may refer to funds set aside within an account for individual projects, locations, or institutions.
Regarding the latter use of the term, some of these earmarks are included in the text of appropriations measures, floor amendments, and conference reports to such measures. If enacted, these earmarks are legally binding.
Most of these earmarks, however, are included in the Senate and House Appropriations Committees’ reports explaining a measure as reported. These earmarks are also frequently included in the managers’ joint explanatory statement (or managers’
statement) that accompanies the conference report.
Earmarks and Limitations in Appropriations Bills (pdf)
|
Banning all earmarks is feel good rhetoric, not good public policy.