This ear mark thing is very muddled and muddied. The money will be spent anyway. If a Senator or a Rep earmarks a sum, it is designated for that use only, instead of going into Obama’s boodle. It seems to me that the problem comes in when earmarks are used as “sweeteners”, as Harry Reid so quaintly puts it. Perhaps we could sort this out by establishing a rule that a Senator or Representative cannot vote on a bill that contains an earmark from him or her or that specifically benefits his/her state. That would end the bribery aspect of earmarks.
“This ear mark thing is very muddled and muddied. The money will be spent anyway. If a Senator or a Rep earmarks a sum, it is designated for that use only, instead of going into Obama’s boodle”
What’s scary, is I actually understand this. LOL.
So the way I understand it is that the money is going to be spent anyway and if he doesn’t earmark it for his district the money will go somewhere else. So he is doing his district a favor by putting the earmarks in. But he votes no on the spending because he doesn’t think we should spend the money and someone else (other dems and rinos) vote yes and gets it passed....So when passed some of the taxpayer money from his district gets returned. If more people would vote no like him, then there wouldn’t be any earmarks....