Money has to be appropriated one way or the other. Cuts or no, there is still “stuff” that needs to be purchased by the gov’t. A moratorium on earmarks means one of Obama’s cronies will decide where money is spent instead of legislators. That’s the short term bad. The long term good is that legislators can’t buy elections by bringing home pork.
“A moratorium on earmarks means one of Obama’s cronies will decide where money is spent instead of legislators”
Please. They could designate it in the legislation that passes through committees the normal way. Done all the time with legit projects.
That’s exactly right. While the use of earmarks has been abused by both parties, I would submit that there are projects/items/programs that are very worthwhile that are currently funded through the earmarking process.
Like hell you say. Read the constitution! The congress should introduce CONSTITUTIONAL spending bills ONLY!! No pet projects for congressmen, senators, states and or local governments. NO PORK!!
And the president’s job is to see that the laws are faithfully executed. Sorry, he does not set the agenda and he does not control the purse strings. That’s the job of We the People through our elected representatives!!
Sorry, but your analysis is not right. Earmarks merely force monies to be spent on specific projects that a particular congress person wants. They are a perversion of the budgetary process used to reward cronies and donors. As stated above, all expenditures should be spelled out in the budget document within the baseline budget. If the congress wants specific work done, say so in the budget and force the congress to vote on its inclusion. The more specific the budget can be, the less the administrators will have leeway to mess with it and reward Obama cronies.
In my opinion, ALL government awards should be competitive except where very special circumstances exist, and then those circumstances need to be spelled out and assessed by non-biased parties.