The Earmark Sideshow

[SHRED]

Starting two wars and simultaneously cutting taxes for the wealthy are at the heart of the deficit but who mentions this bedsides maybe Keith or Rachel?

The Earmark Sideshow
By Joe Conason

It isn’t the earmarks, stupid.

Bullying Republican Senate leaders into a “voluntary” ban on earmarks may represent a political triumph for the tea party movement, but as a measure to reduce the federal deficit it is a meaningless substitute for real action. The facts about earmarks—and the deficit, for that matter—are so simple that even the dumbest birther should be able to understand.

Funds directed to specific projects by legislators—which is what earmarks are—account for around 1 percent of any annual budget, so they represent far too little money to substantially reduce the budget. Besides, banning earmarks won’t reduce the budget (or the deficit) anyway, because they are drawn from funds that have already been appropriated.

So much for that sideshow, a cynical exercise whose only conceivable purpose is to deceive voters. How would serious people try to reduce the deficit? First, it is essential to understand how and why the deficit grew in the first place.

It isn’t the stimulus, stupid. And it isn’t the bailouts either.

CONTINUED:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_earmark_sideshow_20101117/

[vi5]

1. Here's their long game on this one....

Shout about earmarks. Decry them as evil and present it as the most important issue the country is facing.

Get Democrats to agree, because as usual they will be too afraid to adamantly disagree with anything Republicans do or say, lest people on cable news say mean things about them.

Get Democrats to actually follow through and forgo their earmarks, and piss off their voters.

Republicans as usual will still bring home their earmarks, find some hypocritical, ridiculous rationalization for doing so and explaining how it doesn't apply to them.

Once again, Democrats will piss off their constituents in an effor to please republicans and cable news pundits while Republicans will get away without having to do or say anything that might ever piss off one member of their base of constituencies.

And once again, Democrats will try to kick the football and fall flat on their backs doing so when it is pulled away.

[OHdem10]

2. I agree with you but the Tea Party does have a point when they

say the earmarks give the impression to public of corruption.
Ear marks are the beginning of government corruption.

To the public it looks like they are buying and selling
legislative votes.

The Louisiana Purchase, the Cornhuskers shakedown, etc.
These are only two examples. To get these Senator's votes
they given big gifts for their state.

There were Democrats who voted 75 to 80% of the time time
with GWB passing his policies who received big time goodies
for their state. One Party buying the votes of members of
the other party.

It maight be better if they are more specific and make a rule
that the Earmarks cannot be used this way.

If Members want to designate earmarks for their state, let
the member go to the committee and advocate for it. This way
it is open and the earmark would be approved by a committee.
Not used to buy votes.

[Bandit]

3. It will be interesting to see how Lisa Murkowski reacts to this

She campaigned on earmarks.. Joe Miller was adamant about eliminating them and Lisa had numerous ads saying she would fight for money for alaskan projects..
she was quite emphatic about it...So now we see if she knows which side her bread is buttered on or if she really can be a little independent...