Amazon.com Widgets
  • I believe earmarks are disgusting and depraved and should be banned from congress.

    Earmarks take funds away from what really matters. They took away millions of dollars that were supposed to go to rebuilding the damage done by hurricane Katrina and brought shame to the government. The reason why we give money to the government is to support the nation as a whole, not some lonely town in the middle of no where.
    And the only people would support earmarks are those idiots who were stealing the nation's tax money to renovate their stupid little bridges in Alaska and small airports which only see about 6-30 airplanes a day, and not even the commercial airlines.

  • I believe earmarks are disgusting and depraved and should be banned from congress.

    Earmarks take funds away from what really matters. They took away millions of dollars that were supposed to go to rebuilding the damage done by hurricane Katrina and brought shame to the government. The reason why we give money to the government is to support the nation as a whole, not some lonely town in the middle of no where.
    And the only people would support earmarks are those idiots who were stealing the nation's tax money to renovate their stupid little bridges in Alaska and small airports which only see about 6-30 airplanes a day, and not even the commercial airlines.

  • Bills should be written to have a single function

    With a large and diverse population, legislation these days has to be long and the words carefully chosen. However, it's not appropriate for example for former Senator Joe Biden(now Vice President) to add a failed bill called the RAVE Act, which basicly sought to discriminate against electronic music festivals, and tack it on to the Amber Alert Act. The RAVE Act was show down with only a few senators voting for it. The Amber Alert Act was only voted no on by 1 member of congress. It's not a fair way to get things passed.

  • Yes, down with earmarks

    A bill should be about 1 general issue. The problem with earmarks is that there might be a bill about raising taxes in Washington state which lets say is good. But then down the page Senator Bob wants to throw in new computers for New Orleans which lets say is controversial. Oh and Governor Larry wants everyone in his city to have a brand BMW, which is bad! So as you can see the real issue is masked.

  • Earmarks have no place in a budget, have you ever seen one in your budget?

    Maybe earmarks were good some time ago, but now with career politicians, earmarks are nothing more than back room deals with lobbyist buttering officials hands. Votes are being bought with earmarks and this country needs to get its house in order. In order to get our finances back in order, they should try a real budget with no "pork barrel" spending.

  • If a spending item is not good enough to be passed by the entire House, it should not be in there at all.

    Earmarks, where a congressman puts a special request in the spending bill to benefit their home district, is a major cause of federal overspending. There have been so many stories of wasteful spending on things that sound ridiculous. I am a big believer that if a spending item is not strong enough to be put in the budget on its own merits, it is probably not worth doing.

    Posted by: ddeathnote
  • I think that earmarks should be banned because congress exists to serve all of our needs, not just those of tiny districts.

    Earmarks are a politician's way of using the taxpayer's money to campaign in their home states. The politician makes their constituents happy by putting money aside to do some minor project in their area. However, tax payers from other districts should not have to pay for these projects as they do not benefit the country as a whole. Congress should ban earmarks.

    Posted by: DepressedDonnell
  • Actually...

    I think that any attempt to earmark a bill, or any government official who profits in any way from any decision that is made by that person, should result in his or her automatic impeachment.

  • Bills should be bills for what they are, and not have additional things tacked on to them to get votes.

    In the government, there should not be any of this "you scratch my back, and I'll scratch your back" mentality. Government should be making and voting on laws based on their pure merit for the nation, and not because they have some hidden funding for a special project tacked on to them on the thousandth page of the legislation. This is why our deficit is so great, because we can't stop adding all of these frivolous spending clauses onto our legislation.

    Posted by: MariaR
  • Earmarks should absolutely be banned in congress, because they are used to sway individuals one way or another.

    It is completely unfair to the tax payers when earmarks are involved in congress. These earmarks are used to sway individuals to vote one way or another when, instead, the votes should be without any types of hidden incentives. They should be all about a straightforward choice of what is good or bad for the country.

    Posted by: eyeslikethat
  • Earmarks are essential to compromise

    Earmarks are a necessary evil of a two party system, and the current ban on them has caused the political gridlock currently seen in the house. The fact is that many politicians cannot simply vote for a bill, even one that is clearly beneficial or even needed nationally, because it could hurt them with their constituency come election season. Earmarks are a way to soften a blow, and allow politicians to vote for a bill with still holding onto the favour of their constituents.

  • But what if it were your district?

    I can completely understand the argument that some people have of saying that Congress spends way too much money on earmarks. With that, I agree. However, I do believe that if it were your town who needed an infrastructure repair, it may be difficult to do it yourself. Towns by mine had some difficulty in finding funding for bridges and other passages ways that were damaged by recent natural disasters. I do think that earmarks are necessary but I don't think that they need to be banned.

  • What???

    This is a way for many politicans to keep the process moving. If one needs a local project done here and a nother get done there, this is how they agree to vote for eachother's project. It might not be completely ethical to do, but it still gives a movement in the house and prevents a complete standstill on every issue. Also, most of these issues are small enough to barely impact any event on the national or international level.

  • I don't believe earmarks should be banned by Congress, because it is a vital method of funding infrastructure projects throughout the country.

    Until recently, earmarks were not seen to be as sinister as they are now. They went mostly not remarked upon into many Congressional bills. As such, they provided opportunities for a myriad of infrastructure projects to be funded throughout the country. Recently, anti-government Republicans have seized upon the earmarks, and turned them into an issue of unchecked spending, while entirely disregarding the benefits.

    Posted by: BrownDustin82

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.