Oddball
Unobtanium Member
No argument here....With the exception as to whether those federal agencies should even exist.See, I am against any earmarks/pork. Theoretically, congressional politicians should be experts on administration, appropriations, and laws; not on most of the subject matter associated with specific grant approvals.Most of what has been called "pork" and "earmarks" is directed spending of monies that would be going to the states in block grants anyways....This is how politicians pay off favored supporters and build monuments to themselves.Oh, another thought I had while reading this: Pork in Congress is obnoxious. My first impression on a repeal of the 17th is that pork would get worse. That would be a significant contributor to the con side of the scale for me. Any arguments against or supporting that?
It's when they get carried away and bust the budget, which happens all the time, that this practice becomes even more problematic.
The federal government has agencies containing experts in almost any field - health, education, defense, agriculture, etc. All congress should be charged with is appropriating monies to those general fields based on the county's current and future needs. Let those experts in the agencies decide specifically how their appropriated budget should be spent. For example, DDHS might decide that autism and influenaza get more monies from their chunk, and they would know best, not Barney Frank or Michelle Bachmann. DoD may decide that a large percentage of their chunk will be spent on better remote IR imaging as a priority need for national defense, not some congressman who has a large sensor developer in his/her state. I hope that makes sense.
I'm just pointing out the facts, sir.
Last edited: