Quote:
Originally Posted by asaris
I don't understand the complaints about earmarks. First, to the best of my recollection, Obama never promised to get rid of earmarks. And second, he shouldn't get rid of them. They're simply how Congress makes sure the money it's spending is being spent how it wants. Sure, there are sometimes silly things that the money gets spent on, but getting rid of earmarks altogether just throws the baby out with the bathwater. Moreover, most of what sounds silly is often not. Consider volcano monitoring, a vital technology proven to save lives -- this is what the Republican party chooses to criticize, just because they think it might sound silly.
|
I think what Obama's goal is with earmarks is similar to some of his other goals - to make government more transparent. IIRC, he has pushed for congresscritters to put all of the earmarks they request up on The Internets for public review and comment.
I think earmarks are possibly a useful tool, but have unfortunately been abused in the past. I think it's great that congresspeople can single out individual projects and needs in their districts, and put some federal dollars towards them. In the ideal case, this makes government more responsive to local needs, instead of vast, one size fits all 'programs'. At worst, it lets congresspeople play politics and line the pockets of their donors.
With proper regulation and controls, I think earmarks could be a great thing. Say if each and every congressperson got $x (maybe based on the # of people in their district) to spend on discretionary projects, with 100% transparency, and perhaps other controls. They should be able to say 'we need a library in our district, here's $1mil for it...but shouldn't be able to select which contractor gets to build the library.