Quote:
Originally Posted by Seaver
Yes... I do. It'd help starve the hog feeding off our tables. If something is to be added into effect then it should be debated and voted on. If it doesn't get passed, maybe those local projects should be debated and voted on at the local level? The Fed is not the end-all of government and should never have become it.
Just do me a favor. If it's so "not-an-issue" look up the amor-for-troops bill (I'm stepping out in a min so I can't). Look up how many earmarks are attached to it... it's a fucking christmas tree where everyone stacked on pet-projects because everyone knew there'd be no one opposing it (or political suicide).
|
Seaver...I dont know how many different ways to say it. Eliminating all earmarks is feel good rhetoric, but bad public policy.
Earmarks are overblown "as an issue"...they represent about 1% of the federal budget. That is a fact.
Most earmarrks are not in supplemental war spending bills but are in regular approrpriation bills and go through the regular appropriations process. That is a fact.
And most earmarks in those bills must now be published at least 2 days in advance of a floor vote as a result of the Demcratic earmark reform in 07. Another fact.
More earmark reform beyond the Democratic reform of 07 (the first in 12 years,btw) is still needed. Eliminating all earmarks is jut plain stupid.
-----Added 22/1/2009 at 10 : 40 : 13-----
Line Item Veto? NOt for me and it is currently unconsittutional and would require a Constitutional Amendment.
It puts too much budgetary power in the hands of the president, when the Constitution specifrically gives that power to Congress.
Imagine what Bush would have done with a line item veto? NOt a pretty thought for alternative energy funding, food stamp funding, community development funding, etc....all programs that he complained were over fundied but had to accept because they were in larger appropriation bills that he wanted.