But not for the reasons you probably think. The media pundits have long feasted on earmarks, generally an easy source of outrage over Congressional misbehavior. Both the right and the left have engaged in tons of recreational outrage over things like the Bridge to Nowhere and the Coconut Grove earmark. Based on all the outrage that has been expressed, you would think that an end to earmarks would be met with a chorus of relieved hosannahs from the media.
But no, the MSNBC crew at least has greeted earmarks with a long, loud, “Meh!” proclaiming them of very little use in balancing the budget, that the $16 billion that has been estimated an end to earmarks might bring is a tiny bit of what is needed to balance the budget, hardly worth the political effort that is being extended on it, a sideshow designed to distract people from the lack of actual progress being made.
John McCain used to feast on earmarks regularly, presenting an award for the most egregious waste of taxpayer money.
But as I recall, the arguments against earmarks didn’t rest only on economic grounds. One of the arguments against earmarks was that they led to bad legislation. One of the way that legislators would get a bill passed would be to lard it up with earmarks so that a Congressman wishing to vote against it on rational, ethical or other reasonable grounds, would have to vote against a project or projects that would benefit his district. I saw no sign that this aspect has been addressed at all by the MSNBC pundits.
So, I call Shenanigans. If you are going to comment on earmarks, comment fairly and reasonably! Remember what you have said in the past, I certainly do! You have made yourselves look stupid and shallow in my eyes over this. Congratulations!
Earmarks are a drop in the bucket, but you’ve got to start somewhere. If congress can’t agree to cut the easy items out of the budget, they’ll never have the discipline to make the big decisions that really do matter.
Paul and McConnell both said they would end earmarks when they were running. After the election, they changed their minds. When it comes to earmarks, politicians lie.
TV stations that back them, will have to change their minds too.
That’s pretty much what earmarks are for, and I don’t remember anyone arguing they lead to bad laws. You could make an equally good argument they help laws get passed. I’m used to two arguments against them: they’re wasteful, and that Congress shouldn’t spend money in this manner, for reasons of principle or Constitutionality or both. That said, you’re correct that earmarks have long been an easy target for the press and for people trying to portray themselves as Washington outsiders. It’s easy to name a project and say it sounds like a stupid waste of money. That doesn’t mean it actually is a stupid waste of money.
Here’s an interesting article about Boehner and earmarks. He’s never used them, wanted Obama to veto a spending bill just because of earmarks ($7.7 billion in earmarks from a $410 billion law), and says he did not want to hold all Republicans to the no-earmarks standard.
When did the MSNBC crew come to that conclusion… back during the “Bridge to Nowhere” days… or more recently?
It is small in the scheme of things … I wonder what the alternative will be. Less spending…or blocks of money given to states or agencies to spend as they see fit… or the same kind of projects that get little scrutiny during the committee process?
Earmarks are like tort reform: too small to matter. Robot Arm has it backwards: all the time Congress might spend bitching about earmarks is time they’d better spend bitching about things that matter.
Considering how little time Congress actually spends running the country, that’s a big deal.
Just because something is small does not mean it’s unimportant. Earmarks are a way to grease the wheels of government, and like all grease, it’s fattening and bad for you.
It does lead to bad legislation, and it also tends to lead to much more spending than the earmarks themselves. Many bad and costly bills get shoved through because they basically bribe everyone to vote for it. Moreover, the earmarks are often used to avoid debate. If you earmark something, it has no legal force and isn’t debated. It can’t be challenged in Congress and it can’t be stripped out. That’s bad government no matter how you slice it. Good government starts with the basics: open and honest argument and deals.
And without them, representatives don’t have much motivation to vote for any particular bill. Although I realize there are people who support the notion that Congress should do a lot less than it already does.
In the last couple of days. Prior to this they were screaming as loud as anyone about things like the “Bridge to Nowhere” but defending some projects that had been called pork (I think a study of honey bees, which actually is very relevant given the are important to various agricultural interests). The gist I got from the coverage was that it was generally a way for legislators to make people in their districts happy.
That pretty much summarizes the argument against earmarks … it makes Congressman vote based on the economic interests of people in their districts rather than the good of the nation as a whole when considering a bill. Creates competing interests, where the earmarked interests are local, provincial and greedy and the national interests are not. Also, it means that Congressmen with lots of seniority and power get to back local projects almost without regard to their usefulness … hence the Bridge to Nowhere and other fiascos.
Not much personal motivation, but at least they can consider bills objectively. One of of the oft-cited problems with earmarks is that bad legislation was often loaded with them – a lipstick on a pig sort of thing, to use a porky analogy.
This is the argument I have heard the MSNBC crew making in the last couple of days, I have no problem with its validity with regard to its effectiveness in balancing the budget. What disappoints me is that the MSNBC crew seems to have had a case of collective amnesia on the topic of earmarks as a source of bad legislation. It kinda smells like they “forgot” about earmarks’ bad aspects since it is a Republican initiative to get rid of them … partisan stuff, in short, overwhelming logic and reason. And while I’m accustomed to Fox News commentators conveniently forgetting that they once opposed something (sometimes quite recently, like in their previous day’s telecast) when the Republican line is that they should support it, I expect better of the MSNBC crew.
I’m sure we’d all like our media outlets to be better and more honest. However, MSNBC isn’t exactly a paragon of journalistic integrity, and never was. I can’t honestly think of any newspaper of TV news program which ever was in reality.
Back to the topic: Another side issue is that I expect a lot less money will get wasted if people have to live with the earmark potentially being dragged out into the light of day and questioned.
If a potential bill needs to be ‘sold’ to some number of perspective States in order to get the required votes to pass the legislation, it probably isn’t a good thing for the Union. Let the States hash out those issues. To me, federal legislation should account for equality across State lines. Equality of usage, equality of accountability.
How do you know it isn’t the opposite case? I regard the health care reform bill as a good thing for the nation. If one senator holds out for a Cornhusker Kickback sort of thing as a condition for supporting a really good, important bill, then hey – that senator is trying to get the best deal for his state, why let the very good be the enemy of the perfect?
