• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should earmarks/pork be permanently banned?

Should earmarks/pork be permanently banned?


  • Total voters
    10

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
36,705
Reaction score
17,867
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Should earmarks/pork be permanently banned?



I say yes.All waste must be cut especially pork spending.




Toomey, McCaskill to call for permanent earmark ban - 2chambers - The Washington Post

A bipartisan duo in the Senate is planning to introduce legislation that would permanently ban earmarks, the legislative practice of securing funding for lawmakers’ pet projects.
Sens. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) and Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) will announce their proposal Wednesday morning at a Capitol news conference. The move comes one year after McCaskill and then-Sen.-elect Toomey penned a joint USA Today op-ed supporting a temporary moratorium on earmarks. Toomey is a freshman senator and a former president of the conservative Club for Growth; McCaskill is facing a competitive re-election bid next year.
Until last year’s lame duck session, earmarks had long been a hallmark of the way Congress has done business. But following a midterm election marked by voter anger at federal spending and the country’s record debt, a renewed emphasis on fiscal restraint in Washington meant that lawmakers could no longer steer money toward their pet projects.
 
No - regardless of the 'big bad meany money robbing rap' that it's all received: they can be abused and over-used . . . but are not inherently an evil.

The purpose of our Congressmen being our Representatives in Congress is to go there - with our requests and needs - and ask for a bit of support for things that we'd like to do. Not 100% support: but some. That is THE purpose and OUR right.

Why is it so wrong for us to do this?

Now - of course, again, yes it can be abused. So excessive use should be reigned in and they *should not* be kept private or quiet. That is where the problems are.
 
I SAY YES without an iota of hesitation. If a member of the congress and senate wants a special appropriation for his district..make it PUBLIC lets hear it and let the group decide...no more of this crap sticking billions in earmarks into a food for kids and abortion bills and tieing special earmarks as a criteria to pass a military spending bill to give the troops what we need....this is the kind of thing we have to STOP first before we hurt people....after you take all this crap and its demonstrated its not enough...then go to the next level....we need common sense and compromise
 
Yes,ban all earmarks.

Politicians have to find an alternate way to "buy" votes.

:peace
 
Should earmarks/pork be permanently banned?



I say yes.All waste must be cut especially pork spending.

In general, eliminating earmarks doesn't cut any spending though.

Earmarks are usually just a way for a congressman to send money that's already going to be spent anyway to a specific project, usually in his district or state. Getting rid of earmarks might make it easier to cut spending, but it doesn't actually cut it.
 
I SAY YES without an iota of hesitation. If a member of the congress and senate wants a special appropriation for his district..make it PUBLIC lets hear it and let the group decide.

Not sure what you mean. All measures are voted on and all votes are public.
 
No - regardless of the 'big bad meany money robbing rap' that it's all received: they can be abused and over-used . . . but are not inherently an evil.

The purpose of our Congressmen being our Representatives in Congress is to go there - with our requests and needs - and ask for a bit of support for things that we'd like to do. Not 100% support: but some. That is THE purpose and OUR right.

Why is it so wrong for us to do this?

Now - of course, again, yes it can be abused. So excessive use should be reigned in and they *should not* be kept private or quiet. That is where the problems are.

Good point.

Earmarks simply put some of the spending decisions in Congress instead of being made by a bureaucrat or with some formula. Nothing really wrong with that. It leads to some silly spending, yes, but that should be judged on its merits, because lots of silly spending happens without earmarks, while some really good spending happens with earmarks too.
 
Yes,ban all earmarks.

Politicians have to find an alternate way to "buy" votes.

:peace

So - if you don't want your representatives representing you and trying to help improve your district and state . . . then what do you want them to do?
 
No - regardless of the 'big bad meany money robbing rap' that it's all received: they can be abused and over-used . . . but are not inherently an evil.

The purpose of our Congressmen being our Representatives in Congress is to go there - with our requests and needs - and ask for a bit of support for things that we'd like to do. Not 100% support: but some. That is THE purpose and OUR right.

Why is it so wrong for us to do this?

Now - of course, again, yes it can be abused. So excessive use should be reigned in and they *should not* be kept private or quiet. That is where the problems are.

Yeah, this. Earmarks in and of themselves are not bad things. The problem is abuse of the system. I would like to see much more oversight on earmarks and better reporting on who gets what, and let voters decide.
 
Yes, why should blue states subsidize red states? Red states take too much money and never give back.
 
So - if you don't want your representatives representing you and trying to help improve your district and state . . . then what do you want them to do?

Focus their attention on dealing with our national debt and more urgent matters. Local projects should not be the priority of Congress. imo.
 
Focus their attention on dealing with our national debt and more urgent matters. Local projects should not be the priority of Congress. imo.

Ok - so right now it's "not the time for that." I agree with that. This can be an example of the misuse of the system.

But ever - always? . . . a bit much.
 
You can't change the constitution. Congress has the power of the purse. Districts like representatives that can bring federal monies back home. A company that gets some federal funds or a contract can employ people, thus stimulating the local economy. People don't spend their salary exclusively in their districts.

But every case is different. Let me say that again: Every case is different.

Not all earmarks are bad.
**Money that helps the district rebuild and regroup after a natural disaster.

**Subsidies to a local business that is hiring labor as a town transitions from one industry to another.

**Grants to a University that is on the verge of groundbreaking technology or medical advancement.

No one likes the tit for tat type of spending. Congressman gets money or CONTRACTS for a local company. Local company gives congressman campaign funds... or hosts a fundraiser dinner. But we can expose this with rules that demand more transparency. Open the door to the closed room deal-making and let's find out why people change their votes. What did they get?

This is the criteria for PORK outlined by Citizens Against Public Waste:

Requested by only one chamber of Congress;
Not specifically authorized;
Not competitively awarded;
Not requested by the President;
Greatly exceeds the President’s budget request or the previous year’s funding;
Not the subject of congressional hearings; or
Serves only a local or special interest.


Regarding 'local' interests--in some cases, these are national interests. For example: Defense contracts. New technologies. And, I believe that helping a community devastated by natural disaster is in the interest of our national character. Or retrofitting a school with the latest technologies.
 
I would be more okay with having a limit to how many earmarks can be on a bill. There is good to having earmarks, but I think if we had a limit to them it would be more beneficial.
 
I would be more okay with having a limit to how many earmarks can be on a bill. There is good to having earmarks, but I think if we had a limit to them it would be more beneficial.

Why? Then you could just have a few bad earmarks rather than alot of bad ones.
 
Why? Then you could just have a few bad earmarks rather than alot of bad ones.

Because I realize that they can be beneficial. What we need is more rules so that we weed out the bad ones for good ones.

An example of a good one, is here in my district in SC we recieved federal money to rebuild our soccer fields and now the city league has grown, the select teams have a place to call home field, and an adult Sunday and Saturday league was started.
 
Because I realize that they can be beneficial. What we need is more rules so that we weed out the bad ones for good ones.

An example of a good one, is here in my district in SC we recieved federal money to rebuild our soccer fields and now the city league has grown, the select teams have a place to call home field, and an adult Sunday and Saturday league was started.

Exactly. . . .
 
I can't imagine any way to prevent selfish earmarks that wouldn't also stop legitimate expenditures. For example, money spent rebuilding a city after a natural disaster. How would the ban distinguish between that and a porkbarrel project?

Edit: Should have read the second page. >_< I like most of Hazlnut's list. But again, something that serves a local or special interest can still be in the common interest. Sometimes a specific problem requires national focus.
 
Last edited:
What we need is more rules so that we weed out the bad ones for good ones.

Ah. That's different.

An example of a good one, is here in my district in SC we recieved federal money to rebuild our soccer fields and now the city league has grown, the select teams have a place to call home field, and an adult Sunday and Saturday league was started.

You realize that pretty much everyone who isn't in your district thinks that's a stupid, wasteful earmark, right? Why should the federal government be subsidizing a city soccer league?
 
I can't imagine any way to prevent selfish earmarks that wouldn't also stop legitimate expenditures. For example, money spent rebuilding a city after a natural disaster. How would the ban distinguish between that and a porkbarrel project?

Edit: Should have read the second page. >_< I like most of Hazlnut's list. But again, something that serves a local or special interest can still be in the common interest. Sometimes a specific problem requires national focus.

Well - I wouldn't mind a bit more oversight, control and approval. If they're requesting funds for a project because "we want it" - we better actually want it. So polling for opinion or support - etc - should be the beginning of every project.

Something ot that extent - though the exact way to engage or value that is up for a good debate.
 
You realize that pretty much everyone who isn't in your district thinks that's a stupid, wasteful earmark, right? Why should the federal government be subsidizing a city soccer league?

And yeah I do realize that people will see it as wasteful, and there is good reason to see that. But I mean compared to a statue was that put up in Columbia through earmarks, at least the soccer fields promote physicall activity and gives high schoolers a part time job in ref'ing games. But that is what I mean when we should have more rules regarding what earmarks go to. I realize that my example wasn't the best, but I am taking the LSAT Saturday, so my brain isn't in the best place.
 
And yeah I do realize that people will see it as wasteful, and there is good reason to see that. But I mean compared to a statue was that put up in Columbia through earmarks, at least the soccer fields promote physicall activity and gives high schoolers a part time job in ref'ing games. But that is what I mean when we should have more rules regarding what earmarks go to. I realize that my example wasn't the best,

No, it wasn't. And there aren't many good examples you'll ever find. Everyone thinks their earmarks are good and others are bad. They people who wanted that statue in Columbia think it is awesome too.

I am taking the LSAT Saturday, so my brain isn't in the best place.

That's not a good sign. ;)
 
Well - I wouldn't mind a bit more oversight, control and approval. If they're requesting funds for a project because "we want it" - we better actually want it. So polling for opinion or support - etc - should be the beginning of every project.

Members of Congress do alot to gage what the people want on lots of issues already.
 
I don't think earmarks should be banned, but there should be more safeguards in place to review such earmarks. I really hate it when they're attached to an important bill yet have nothing to do with the bill. Such maneuvers should be outlawed.
 
Back
Top Bottom