Post User Polls

Will Congress really ban earmarks?

A coalition of tea party-backed senators are already pressing the Republican establishment over the practice of earmarks.

Do you think they -- or others in coming years -- will actually succeed in banning the controversial budget practice?

By Jon DeNunzio  |  November 13, 2010; 10:18 PM ET Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati  
Previous: Grade the policy that bans Fs from report cards | Next: Do you trust your doctor to prescribe the appropriate drugs for you?

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



Ending earmarks and STOP special interesting financing of our elections at all levels of government would be the best christmas present ever to the USA.

Yes less money would be spent but so what.

Posted by: rheckler2002 | November 14, 2010 7:12 AM

They like to talk the talk, but don't walk the walk.

Posted by: lddoyle2002 | November 14, 2010 10:29 AM

Yes they'll ban earmarks and corruption too...in dog years near the lands where unicorns roam and trolls grant treasures to all who pass.

Posted by: TheFreeMan | November 14, 2010 10:54 AM

An emotional reaction to earmarks stops any thoughtful analysis of what they contribute to society. Knee jerk reaction of conservatives who are adverse to thinking deeply or compassionately on any subject led the charge that earmarks equate to corruption. If that were true to the extent they claim then I would be against, but the fact is that earmarks are automatically corrupt or wrong. Are some earmaks better than others. Yes, but don't pick al the bad to suopport an anti view.

I know it's hard for conservatives, but think deeply. What is really wrong with earmarks? They employ people, often purchase materials and support businesses and the projects improve the quality of life around us. Let the states that don't like earmarks prohibit them and let those of us interested in earmarks free to do what we think best. And by the way, do the same on term limits. If you and your state believe in term limits then by all means pass such legislation, just leave the others alone to make their choices.

Posted by: Obadiah55 | November 14, 2010 11:18 AM

An emotional reaction to earmarks stops any thoughtful analysis of what they contribute to society. Knee jerk reaction of conservatives who are adverse to thinking deeply or compassionately on any subject led the charge that earmarks equate to corruption. If that were true to the extent they claim then I would be against them, but the fact is that earmarks are automatically corrupt is wrong. Are some earmaks better than others. Yes, but don't pick all the bad to support an anti view.

I know it's hard for conservatives, but think deeply. What is really wrong with earmarks? They employ people, often purchase materials and support businesses and the projects improve the quality of life around us. Let the states that don't like earmarks prohibit them and let those of us interested in earmarks free to do what we think best. And by the way, do the same on term limits. If you and your state believe in term limits then by all means pass such legislation, just leave the others alone to make their choices.

Posted by: Obadiah55 | November 14, 2010 11:21 AM

An Earmark is an Earmark will be something else. Make mandatory publication of any such clandestine funding then see what happens.

Posted by: justmehla | November 14, 2010 12:02 PM

Of course they'll ban earmarks, they promised to didn't they?

And just as certain as they'll ban earmarks they'll come up with a new name for the same thing and do that ... instead.

Same Sht, Different day.

Posted by: eezmamata | November 14, 2010 5:53 PM

There is an unincorporated community northwest of Detroit formally known as Hell. Look it up, Hell, Michigan.

The way the weather has been the last couple of days it is due to freeze over pretty soon. So, yes, I guess it could happen.

Posted by: colonelpanic | November 14, 2010 7:43 PM

We should ALL be able to agree that WE, the people, need to know what is being done with OUR money and in OUR names. Every single thing that our representatives do, every negotiation with every lobbyist and contractor and union rep, should be done openly, noted and made available to ALL citizens in the public record. The ONLY exception should be when classified information needs to be discussed and we should STILL appoint some sort of "independent panel" of private citizens with security clearances to review THOSE discussions and inform the people at large of any nonsense on the part of our "leaders".

THAT is the standard to which we MUST hold our Congress. No matter what else they may do or fail to do, if the Republicans can deliver open and honest government they will have done us AND themselves a great service. If they fail to deliver on those promises, then we ALL lose and, I guarantee you, so will they.

I think we have recently proven that the people are STILL sovereign in this nation and that we WILL hold our "leaders" to account for arrogant, secretive and selfish behavior. I hope that BOTH parties have learned that lesson. Time will shortly tell.

Good luck, Republicans! Please don't let us down again!

Posted by: andrew23boyle | November 14, 2010 8:52 PM

You're kidding, right?

Posted by: presto668 | November 15, 2010 12:09 AM

And yet we re-elect these liars over and over....

Posted by: Over-n-Out | November 15, 2010 5:41 AM

Of course earmarks should end but that is truly a drop(17 Billion) in the bucket of budget responsibility. It's mostly symbolic but I'll take it.
Next, Congress needs to adopt the measures outlined in the Commission's Report to reduce the deficit. Americans are willing to sacrifice.
Congress is terrific at spending other people's money.
Let's see how well they stop spending other people's money.

Posted by: dangerbird1 | November 15, 2010 6:38 AM

Yea ear marks will be banend by the GOP and it;ll happen the day after they trim the fat on our Farm Subsidies that many GOPers and their families directly benefit from.

Such a bunch of independent pioneers conservatives are.....unless you look closely at what they do rather than what they say.

Posted by: theobserver4 | November 15, 2010 9:21 AM

Re-branding to the rescue.

Posted by: trident420 | November 15, 2010 9:40 AM

If earmarks are ever banned they will simply change the name to targeted funding or some other innocuous sounding wording. I'm sure Frank Luntz can come up with something.

Posted by: sauerkraut | November 15, 2010 9:47 AM

As much as the Repubs "say" they are against earmarks, they'll keep feeding at the trough like all the little piggies in Congress.

Posted by: lddoyle2002 | November 15, 2010 10:14 AM

McCain tried to make earmarks his campaign mantra, he made two fallacious assumptions:

1) Earmarks are important: earmarks make up around $8-10 billion each year. While that's not chump change, that amounts to 0.1% of the federal budget.

2) Earmarks are useless: many earmarks are funding for research projects, special building funds like memorial projects and schools, and other useful projects. Yes, there are some horrible examples, but one example that McCain liked to use was the honeybee study. Turns out, the study discovered that honey bees are going extinct and could threaten our multi-trillion dollar food supply if they disappeared. Was that worth a few million in research funds? I'd say so!

Posted by: AxelDC | November 15, 2010 10:53 AM

Don't people realize: earmarks don't increase spending. They simply direct part of money that has already been appropriated, for a specific project or projects. Banning earmarks would NOT decrease spending. All that would do is make all decisions on which projects to fund be made by the bureau that is in charge of that segment of the budget. The money will still be spent! Just not on the pet projects of lawmakers. Which would be fine, actually; but I do NOT think that lawmakers would ever give up the ability to direct government spending to what they and their constituents (or lobbyists) want. Getting rid of earmarks would reduce the power of the lawmakers. So not likely to ever happen.

Posted by: catherine3 | November 15, 2010 3:44 PM

DeMint hope republicans will not ear mark but if democrats do then he will try to beat them over the head with the issue.

Hey ask Gov. Tim Pawlenty needs earmarks for bridge repair/inspection.

Posted by: knjincvc | November 15, 2010 7:33 PM

Earmarks amount to about .3 of 1% of the federal budget. Still, republicans say "that's enough to cut" because they won't cut the really big things like defense, Medicare and Social Security in order to balance the budget. It's all rhetoric and anti-Obama for the republicans. When they pick their candidate, it will become clear to a majority of Americans that the republicans offer no solutions and resorting to "cut the earmarks" is intellectual dishonesty as Americans go to the polls in 2012.

Posted by: JTFLORIDA | November 20, 2010 5:53 PM

Any bill worthy of passing should be presented on it's own and pass on it's own...no more attaching it to mother and apple pie.

Posted by: Billy1932 | November 20, 2010 5:59 PM

Remember the line item veto? I came and
went out the door fast. Don't look this ban to walk in the door.

Posted by: jjgrah | November 20, 2010 6:44 PM

when pigs fly

Posted by: lndlouis | November 20, 2010 11:07 PM

The American taxpayers are paying for these earmarks just so a member of congress can make points in the member's home state. RIPOFF AND A WASTE OF TAXPAYERS MONEY.

Posted by: usapdx | November 23, 2010 5:23 AM

So,our power mad US Congress had better ban all earmarks in 2011 or they all get voted out of office in 2012 and in case you
were not watching right now North Korea &
South Korea are exchanging artillery fire,
as der leader Barack Hussein Obama hides under his bed once that dreaded 3am telephone call came into the White House
about it. We have 27,000 US Troops still
in South Korea and have a treaty to help
defense them so don't count on China for
more money on this one! Impeach the Great
Bowing Apologizer Wimp Barack Obama!

Posted by: carleen09 | November 23, 2010 5:38 AM

Just like 1994, when republicans swept into power after running on term limits, all of this talk about getting rid of ear marks will soon be forgotten.


Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Posted by: tkoho | November 23, 2010 6:34 AM

in case you
were not watching right now North Korea &
South Korea are exchanging artillery fire,
as der leader Barack Hussein Obama hides under his bed once that dreaded 3am telephone call came into the White House
===
time to go back on your meds
or maybe you'd prefer that Obama attack a country that had nothing to do with 9/11?
Oh you'd like him then! (he's not that stupid)
Note: North Korea attacked South Korea when Bush was in office. Were you as upset with Bushyboy? I doubt it.

Posted by: bozhogg | November 23, 2010 6:36 AM

Maybe congress will ban earmarks, but if they do they'll find a loophole to do the same thing in another way.

Posted by: tinyjab40 | November 23, 2010 7:07 AM

The teapublicans will kill earmarks at the start of the session. Then they'll add something like "directed spending" and do the same thing they were doing before. The fox "news" viewers will be mollified.

A skunk by any other name....

Posted by: filfeit | November 23, 2010 7:13 AM

McGoo couldn't get by if he couldn't rake in taxpayer cash for his hillbilly constituents. He's full of bluegrass horsesh|t.

Posted by: Please_Fix_VAs_Roads | November 23, 2010 8:42 AM

Earmarks are the crucible of what the election was telling those in Washington: stop wasting money and time. Make our government efficient and effective. Pay our bills. Never again should there be a bridge to nowhere or a 10 lane highway through a town of 500, or federal dollars spent on a tea cup museum. We also need our elected representation to start answering questions with answers and not with sound bites and anecdotal blather.

Posted by: poppysue85 | November 23, 2010 8:56 AM

Banning earmarks won't save any money. It's symbolic only.

Posted by: Dadrick | November 23, 2010 9:24 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company