I’m not sure we can blame the media, since the “objective” media is something that only existed from about the 1950s to the 1980s. Throughout most of history, media has been openly partisan and often irresponsible. So you could say that we’ve really just returned to the norm.
That’s a pretty broad definition of corruption, which usually applies to personal gain from the sale of public office. Voting for for a defense bill in return for a new flood control project in a congressman’s home district is not corrupt.
It is. The bill is either good for the nation or it isn’t. It doesn’t become good for the nation just because you got your little piece of pork.
Less getting done has meant less bad legislation, which was produced by the truckload back in the earmark days.
Yeah, America was dysfunctional back in the 1940’s — we needed Italy to help bail us out from W.W. II — and in the 1950’s — would we have ever built the Interstate Highways without the Marshall Plan? — and in the 1960’s — our “government” faked the Moon landings to pretend otherwise — … but now with earmarks gone, American government has never been healthier!
… Not. 
Ah, so they wouldn’t have supported the Marshall Plan or the interstate highway system without getting earmarks?
You are unique in your definition of corruption. The congessman got nothing, so it is not corruption. His constituents got a new flood control project, the national defense was maintained, win-win-win. In what way is any of that not good for the nation?
At least you admit your ignorance and lack of interest before you post a meaningless comment.
“Getting” them to vote? So they were forced?
No, they were bribed. “I think this bill is bad for the nation, but I’ll vote for it if I get $500 million for a statue of me.”
You wouldn’t call a referendum an example of that disintermediation? That’s about as disintermediated as things get, and we see what it got the British.
But the fact that it contains $500 million for a statue of him means he no loner thinks the bill is bad for the nation.
You simply cannot impose your arbitrary standards of what is good for the nation and what is only good for certain people or a certain region and declare that one is okay and the other is corruption. It may be a political decision that you disapprove of, and maybe the voters would agree (or maybe not), but that doesn’t make it corruption.
That’s not the only corruption earmarks cause though. Another example is “pay to play”. If a company or advocacy group wants an earmark, they have to make a donation to their Congressman’s campaign. Jack Murtha rigidly enforced this scheme in his district. And he’s not the only one:
http://www.aim.org/guest-column/earmarks-and-congressional-corruption/
It’s Paul Weyrich, but he’s sincere about going after this kind of corruption and he calls some people out here who needed to be called out. The earmark ban is good policy and should be maintained.
That you came up with a stupid example weakens your case. How about
“I think your bridge is a not the best use of my taxpayers’ money but I’ll vote for it if I get an improvement to my state’s national park.”
[QUOTE=adaher]
Ah, so they wouldn’t have supported the Marshall Plan or the interstate highway system without getting earmarks?
[/QUOTE]
Correct. Did you think the Marshall Plan passed Congress easily? :smack:
You didn’t even read the article OP linked to, did you?
Pay to play is a much better argument for corruption. It is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from congressmen voting for bills because they contain earmarks though.
We’ve gone nuts with making rules so that government doesn’t work. Earmarks are a small part of government spending, but they’re like oil in the gears. “I’ll vote for the law to require background checks if you’ll vote for my dam project”. Is it like some idealized fantasy of how government should work? No. Does it get things done? Yes.
If killing earmarks wasn’t stupid enough, term limits (only applicable at state level) are even dumber. Sure, let’s make sure that nobody in the state legislature has more than 3 years of experience. That’ll make for efficient governing.
Efficient law passing is not really the same as efficient governing. Laws aren’t supposed to pass easily. If you need earmarks to buy a few votes that you need, then that means your law never had majority support to begin with, much less the broad consensus the founders envisioned for new laws to be possible. If we were just meant to pass laws easily, we could have copied Britain’s system.
There’s a difference between working easily and working at all. Right now the system is broken because one side has members who cannot compromise on anything because if they do, they’ll get primaried by someone who won’t. The system is broken because one party is broken, it is broken because their voters are insane.
It’s not really broken though. Necessary laws still get passed, the spending still gets done, and with better fiscal responsibility than normal. The brokenness seems to stem from the drama around it all these days.
Sure it is. There’s a vacancy on the Supreme Court because Republicans think Obama only counts as 3/5 of a president. There are many vacancies on lower courts because Republicans don’t want Obama appointing any judges, even those judges recommended by the same guys who are blocking their nomination. Common sense laws like no-fly no-buy are blocked from getting votes because one party is a subsidiary of the NRA.
If the Republicans tried to pass anti-LGBT or anti-abortion legislation, do you want your Democratic lawmakers to compromise or be uncompromising?