Stop using "earmarks" as a substitute for "wasteful spending", please. Everyone and their dog does this, and it's really annoying to anyone who has knowledge of the budget process. An earmark is nothing more than a statement of how an already-approved sum of money should be spent. It neither increases the money being spent in a given budget, nor does it take money from another purpose to give to the thing in question.
All it says is "Of the $40 billion being given to the Department of Transportation, $50 million shall go to rebuilding (a particular highway) in (some state)". Some of it is wasteful, but most of it is necessary. We spend an awful lot of money in a given budget, so congresspeople want to make sure some portion of that goes to projects they feel are important. The alternative is that it's just given as a lump sum to an executive agency, which doesn't seem much better. Any money specifically directed toward Hurricane Katrina relief is an "earmark". Any money given to stem-cell research is an "earmark". Most of the money a state gets to rebuild roads and bridges are "earmarks".
If it's pork, call it pork, but don't malign the earmark by implying that the two are equivalent, if you please.
All it says is "Of the $40 billion being given to the Department of Transportation, $50 million shall go to rebuilding (a particular highway) in (some state)". Some of it is wasteful, but most of it is necessary. We spend an awful lot of money in a given budget, so congresspeople want to make sure some portion of that goes to projects they feel are important. The alternative is that it's just given as a lump sum to an executive agency, which doesn't seem much better. Any money specifically directed toward Hurricane Katrina relief is an "earmark". Any money given to stem-cell research is an "earmark". Most of the money a state gets to rebuild roads and bridges are "earmarks".
If it's pork, call it pork, but don't malign the earmark by implying that the two are equivalent, if you please.
