“Earmark” simply means that a project will be funded out of MONEY ALREADY APPROPRIATED!
Now, if you could show that the beneficiary of the earmark did not want it or need it? Well THEN you have a story.
There is an argument to be made that the Federal Bureaucracy is so hard to fight, sometimes Congress needs to FORCE an issue or an item through, with the use of EARMARKS.
It seems odd to me that the Conservative movement, which was so disappointed at McCain getting the nomination, is fighting the ONLY issue that McCain seemed to think was important! (How did the “earmark” issue work for McCain?)
Again, at the Dole Convention in San Diego, I HEARD Moran use the “Wingers” insult against the conservatives who had just taken control of the State Party.
Moran’s comment about the “wingers” was not incorrect. There are people in both the Kansas GOP and the Minnesota GOP who are extraordinarily far out in right field.
They, like the Socialists using the Democrat party to gain power and influence, are using the GOP to gain power and influence. They are of the black helicopters and tinfoil hats crowd.
Even Rush Limbaugh (years ago in his TV show) elaborated on the differences between conservatives and “wingers” - and he was not particularly kind towards the latter.
John Mccain’s candidacy was not doomed because he was opposed to earmarks. It had suffered so much self-inflicted damage (from other policy stances) that earmarks were the least of his worries.
Also, we need to consider this....
Just because the money has been appropriated doesn’t mean we have to spend it!
Bills coming from Congress are so incredibly loaded with junk earmarks that are completely extraneous to the bill that they’re attached to. That kind of hooey needs to stop!