Earmarks more than bonuses

[Evangelical]

Did anyone else notice that the Earmarks in the spending bill were a greater portion of that bill than the bonuses from AIG were a proportion of AIG's bailout money?

Just wondering.

Because you know, if Politicians are all mad a spending bill they never read allowed AIG to give out bonuses of some ratio, maybe they should be a little more mad of their "bonuses" called "earmarks" or "pork barreling" at some greater ratio.

The hypocrisy is astounding.

 

[waltky]

Political necessity is the mother of earmarks...

Military spending will thwart earmark ban, experts predict
02/07/11 - Defense budget experts say the campaign to banish earmarks from Congress is unlikely to succeed because lawmakers will find other ways to direct money to military projects in their districts.

Military projects are too important in too many states and districts for an earmarks ban to halt targeted spending by lawmakers, former Senate congressional defense aides and analysts said. Plus, a ban on earmarks would do little to lower the deficit, leading some to predict lawmakers might even scrap the idea of banning them. “People think earmarks are bad, but many defense earmarks go toward things Americans strongly support, such as small businesses, medical research and the National Guard and Reserves,” said Travis Sharp of the Center for a New American Security (CNAS). “The defense industry considers earmarks to be a part of the defense budget, where innovation is more welcome.”

Many lawmakers view earmarks as a political necessity. The directed spending brings jobs and an economic boost to their districts and states. For that reason, defense insiders say, there is too much for members to lose by banning them outright. “Bringing home the bacon is the core function for members of Congress in this political system,” said Loren Thompson, a defense consultant and analyst at the Lexington Institute. “The bottom line is Congress will come up with another way of doing this.”

Past reforms largely have produced little change and many loopholes, said Winslow Wheeler, a 30-year congressional aide now with the Center for Defense Information (CDI). “Expect more of the same,” he added. President Obama said in his State of the Union Speech on Jan. 25 that he would veto any legislation containing earmarks. House and Senate Republicans have instituted their own voluntary ban, and majority Democrats in the Senate have conceded that they won’t be able to pass spending bills with earmarks in place.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told ABC News the morning after Obama’s speech that he was “so pleased” to hear the veto threat on earmarks. Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, has said a ban would be “an important step for reining in out-of-control government spending.” But some congressional aides and analysts question the president’s veto threat. They quickly note that many in Washington consider lawmakers’ yearly move on the F-35 fighter engine to be an earmark. Lawmakers have added language and funds for the F-5’s second engine to defense authorization and appropriations bills.

MORE

 

[uscitizen]

Yep walt has the straight of it.
Earmarks may be banned in name and current methodology but they will continue.