ASU2003

Eric Cantor || Republican Whip || YouCut

The only reason I say it's a start is that there is a lot of other earmarks and tax cuts that I'm sure the American public wouldn't go for. They could expand this to a lot of different government angencies as well.

Yet, there is a reason that having the government spend some money is a good thing, and if this becomes a fiscal witch-hunt, it might not work out too well.

dippin

I am sorry, but this is all bullshit. Not the cutting spending part, but the desperate attempt to find a escapegoat for the country's fiscal problems. Get a small program, spin it so it is seen in the worst possible light, sell it as being tough on spending. Over the next five years the federal government will spend nearly 20 trillion dollars. The biggest cut there isn't an actual budget item, but the fact that federal workers can use some of their time in union related activities, something that wouldn't change the budget, as it most federal workers are salaried, and not paid by the hour. Everything else there put together is about 0.03% of the budget.


So in other words, everything in there is meaningless. It is a political strategy to sound tough without having to do anything. To really cut spending would require to cut medicare, social security and the military, but guess what, that is unpopular.

Seaver

Great idea I think. I have little faith in the execution of it, but it's finally an idea I like.

Are you honestly saying there isn't much fat to cut from the US Government? You can take a hatchet to the annual budget and never hit anything with actual meat. It's unpopular to point out the pork each Senator/Congressman pours into every bill with earmarks because their committee appointments make it so they can in turn block anything you want.

__________________
"Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

dippin

No. I am saying that anyone who runs on a platform of cutting spending without talking about cutting social security, medicare or the military is not serious about cutting spending.

Again, all those programs he lists in that site are less than a tenth of a percent of the budget.

Earmarks are less than 2% of the budget.

This is like a candidate running on a platform of being tough on crime by promising he will end jaywalking. Or saying that he will promote education by promising to give a pencil to each kid.

So until a Republican runs on cutting medicare, social security or the military, this is just a marketing campaign. Republicans might end up spending more on promoting this youcut site than what some of the programs listed there might cost.

guy44

Exactly. I think people in general don't have a good sense of how money is actually spent by the federal government. Here's a few great graphs to clear things up:

Total spending:



A breakdown of other spending:



Within that last graph, maybe 4-5% or so is earmarks. Both parties go after earmarks, and that's mostly cool because a lot of them are wasteful, but let's be honest: it's more a stalling tactic or a campaign line than any sort of meaningful government reform.

__________________
"You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

Aladdin Sane

Wasteful spending is only a small part of the earmark problem. The problem of earmarks is a problem of bribery, vote-buying, and ongoing political corruption. Earmark projects are typically buried within unrelated legislation to keep the spending hidden from the general public. Politicians use earmarks to reward supporters and enrich themselves. The real cost of an individual earmark goes way beyond the dollar figure reported in legislation. The real cost is political corruption that is destroying the public trust in government.

__________________
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.