Michael
Oct 19th 2008, 06:18 PM
If I hear any more bullshit about 'earmarks' in the US Presidential election, I'm going to lose it.
Earmarks don't add to government spending. Earmarks are not pork-barrel spending.
When politicians get people thinking that 'earmarks' are the primary method of 'government waste/corruption/useless spending', then the public and the media has been fooled again.
Apart from the fact that earmarks account for less than 1% of US Government spending, the fact is earmarks only direct already approved spending to occur in a particular or specific way ('earmarked' spending). Even without any particular 'earmark' that spending is already approved to occur anyway.
As far as I'm concerned, when it comes to evaluating wasteful or corrupt Government spending processes in the US, earmarks wouldn't make my top-ten list at all. Not even close. The issue isn't even worth paying attention to given the scale of other on-going government spending and corruption.
Earmarks don't add to government spending. Earmarks are not pork-barrel spending.
When politicians get people thinking that 'earmarks' are the primary method of 'government waste/corruption/useless spending', then the public and the media has been fooled again.
Apart from the fact that earmarks account for less than 1% of US Government spending, the fact is earmarks only direct already approved spending to occur in a particular or specific way ('earmarked' spending). Even without any particular 'earmark' that spending is already approved to occur anyway.
As far as I'm concerned, when it comes to evaluating wasteful or corrupt Government spending processes in the US, earmarks wouldn't make my top-ten list at all. Not even close. The issue isn't even worth paying attention to given the scale of other on-going government spending and corruption.