Keeping an Eye on Earmarks

[Gaspar]

Funny! 

The Government Accountability Office, Congressional Research Service, Defense Contract Auditing Agency, and Inspector General offices are now using the Earmark Database System created by Taxpayers for Common Sense to track earmarks.

The current administration has over 10,000 earmarks in the first 3 months of existence and as of yet, no government agency has any way of tracking them all, so, the President's own people are scrambling to get a handle on things, and in doing so, they are relying on data collected and constantly updated by this group. 

Should we laugh or cry?

[Conan71]

Gaspar- there's no way that's accurate.  President Obama promised no more earmarks, remember?

[RecycleMichael]

I plan on keeping my ear on eyemarks...my nose on marks around the mouth...and keeping my eyebrows from growing together

[Gaspar]

I get confused with punctuation too sometimes.  

I don't think he meant "no more earmarks".  

I think it was:

No, more earmarks!

[Cats Cats Cats]

You do realize that this means that nobody before them were trying either.

[Conan71]

I plan on keeping my ear on eyemarks...my nose on marks around the mouth...and keeping my eyebrows from growing together

I think you would look smashing with a uni-brow.

[Gaspar]

You do realize that this means that nobody before them were trying either.

I agree.   They've been spinning out of control for quite some time.  That's why all of the viable candidates for president vowed to put and end to earmarks.  That's a big reason that many moderates shifted their votes to President Obama.

The worst year for earmarks was 2005 with a grand total at the end of the year of 13,997. 

We are only in the 4th month of 2009 and we are in line to double or triple that amount by the end of the year.

You're exactly right.  In previous administrations earmarks became a big problem for accountability.  Money was diverted, hidden, and in many cases never spent or accounted for. 

Most reasonable people and politicians (President Obama Included) came to the conclusion that earmarks had to be eliminated to bring accountability back to Washington.

Now the earmark system is completely unchecked.  It would be somewhat understandable if President Obama were just stamping liberal or Democrat earmarks, but he's letting Republicans abuse the system more than ever before. 

This, "If you can get it into a bill, you can have it" mentality plants the seeds of corruption everywhere, and signals "OPEN SEASON" to lobbyists.

If you are a young attorney, interests all over the world are hiring Washington lobbyists, and increasing their numbers. 

I'm all for job creation, but let our representatives in Washington represent us.   After all, we need change.

[FOTD]

 

I'm all for job creation, but let our representatives in Washington represent us.   After all, we need change.

There's difference between ending earmarks and no more earmarks.

Just ask Sully.

Be assured, the end to special interest lobbying for corporate welfare and state earmarks will take time. Besides, they will just rearrange the room and give earmarks a new name and place in the budget as a new diversionary means to get to their intended results. Smoke and mirrors. This smoke is not thick when compared to other wasteful, ineffective, and inefficient budgetary items.

[nathanm]

I agree.   They've been spinning out of control for quite some time.  That's why all of the viable candidates for president vowed to put and end to earmarks.  That's a big reason that many moderates shifted their votes to President Obama.

The worst year for earmarks was 2005 with a grand total at the end of the year of 13,997. 

Rather than a count, I'd like to know how it stacks up in dollars both raw and as a percentage of total spending.

I don't see anything wrong with earmarks per se; where they can and have gone wrong is volume, inequity in distribution, and lack of transparency.

I'd rather see a blanket bucket that each congressperson gets to spend on his/her district as they see fit, so long as they aren't bought. The requirements being a competitive application process for funding of public works projects from the "bucket," and complete transparency in disbursement. Say each state gets 100 million (or whatever, I'm just throwing a number out there), plus x dollars per person divided equally amongst its congress critters for them to appropriate for whatever burning issues exist in their district. If they want to fund a museum, great. If they want to fix a bridge, fine. If they want to build a rail line with it, even better.

That's essentially what we're doing now, but x is limited only by the sneakiness of the congressperson.