nodoginnafight
No Party Affiliation
- Thread starter
- #21
Watching the House debate, especially in committee, a Republican with rail against spending for a certain program but slip in a little, 'but my case is an exception'. Earmarks might have gotten a really bad name for themselves, some of that justified, but it seems counterproductive to eliminate earmarks altogether. They serve a very valuable function.
I guess some projects may be legitimate, but how do you weed out the frivolous from the legitimate since they are rarely individually debated. They are most often passed out like Halloween candy for the good little boys and girls who vote in favor of a particular piece of legislation.
That's the beauty of modern technology. It is so much easier to follow where the dollars go now. It really changes the nature of the game.
That's true - but how many people actually follow those dollars?
The problem with Edge's analogy about the grocery store is (imho) we aren't talking about a fixed number of dollars that will be spent anyway. His definition of "earmark" is also not how other people use the word.
Last edited: