I feel the same as the rest of the people who have written an opinion on the yes side. The bottom line is that earmarking shows a poor and lazy method of managing money resources. If spending is not continually monitored/altered to reflect current needs, then it is going to cause overspending or unnecessary spending. There may be certain areas where earmarking may be more convenient (for things that are more consistent in their spending requests) but we all know that this is not the case for most programs requiring money.
It should not be pre-determined where our money goes. The world is ever changing and that might mean that our money needs to be spent some where else. I think that earmarking money to be specifically spent should be cut down to a minimum unless it is proven that we will continue to need what it is paying for.
The allowing of earmarks in congress, allows for much corruption within the system. It gives big businesses and those with large pockets the chance to take the money that is coming from the taxpayers and more or less steal them for their own gain and benefits rather than the good of the people. It should not be permissable. So yes I do think congressional earmarks should be abolished.
I feel that congressional earmarks should be abolished, at least temporarily, until the United States begins to reign in its spending and start significantly reducing the national debt. Only the most necessary of government projects should be approved, and needless allotments of money to congresspersons' home constituencies needs to be curtailed.