Washington Post, please define "key step"
March 11, 2010 4:47 pm ET by Jamison Foser
The Washington Post gushes over the House GOP's announcement that they won't seek any earmarks this year:
But "key step" is more than a little generous: By most estimates, earmarks account for only 1 to 2 percent of the federal budget.
Touting a largely symbolic move as a "key step in demonstrating fiscal restraint" is, in fact, a key step in delaying actual fiscal restraint.
(I guess you need Lexis for this kind of task?)
~
Totally a symbolic move. There are some earmarks that are wonderful and well-thought out and necessary. Not all earmarks are bad. The earmark process was abused, but earmarks themselves are not terrible.
Pork Barrel spending IS most often bad. That's different than an earmark though.
If you don't agree, then it is pork?
But maybe instead of making a bogus accusation simply because you side with the rightwing trolls here, next time you can look it up and figure out what the differences are between earmarks and pork on your own.
In United States politics an earmark is a legislative (especially congressional) provision that directs approved funds to be spent on specific projects or that directs specific exemptions from taxes or mandated fees. Earmarks can be added on to appropriations bills (causing more money to be spent) or they can be "carved out" of bills (the same amount of money is spent, but restrictions are placed on how the money is spent).
The term pork barrel politics usually refers to spending that is intended to benefit constituents of a politician in return for their political support, either in the form of campaign contributions or votes.
Because local House Representatives, and sometimes Senators, have a better idea than a Congressman from another district or another state about what local capabilities and needs would be, those people will sometimes recognize that need and/or capability and designate certain funds to certain projects. That's one of the things that members of Congress SHOULD DO, not only be one representative to the whole body, but also to be an advocate FOR their district/state!
Agreeing or disagreeing with it has nothing to do with it if one is an honest broker of the truth.
In the last 2 yrs. congress has spent $36 billion on earmarks...avg. $18 billion a year.
Drum roll please...that means saving $180 billion over the next 10 years by eliminating earmarks...which is a lot more than the proposed savings in health care reform...and it doesn't cost us a dime to implement.
Health care reform means spending $900 billion and hoping to save $1 trillion for a net savings of about $100 billion.
Calling the savings symbolic is the definition of a liberal spending other peoples money.
1) Not all the earmarks are a waste.
2) Plenty of those earmarks were put in by congresscritters who are not liberals.
3) The primary purpose of health care reform isn't to reduce the Federal deficit, it is to fix our lousy system (which does a fine job of enriching health insurance companies but precious little else).
So you're 0 for 3, yet this probably still doesn't hurt your average.
~