Posted on 02/02/2012 5:54:51 PM PST by writer33
The nation is extricating itself from two costly wars, is struggling painfully out of a recession, and is suffering from near complete dysfunction in Congress. And yet, campaigns are still trotting out the old standby—criticism of earmarks and congressional travel.
Both former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum have been slammed on the campaign trail for agreeing to (or sponsoring) earmarks in Congress, the suggestion being that the men are not real conservatives if they backed such supposedly wasteful spending.
It's true that some of the earmarks—which are just dedicated projects in the federal budget—are probably not worth the money. But some of them fund small, pilot programs or needed local infrastructure development that can create jobs and bring other benefits. And while it may seem unfair to set aside a certain amount of cash specifically for one city or university, it can be much cheaper than the alternative, which would be having a federal agency seek and evaluate bids for the project.
For those interested ping!
Forgot the link:
I don’t like earmarks no matter who asks for them.
I personally think earmarks can be eliminated by cutting taxes and leaving more money in the pockets of the people. If people want the extras, they’ll vote for them at the state and local level.
Localizing taxes was one of the issues my congressman ran on.
Frankly, I am tired of all the slamming.
All I want is for them to lay out a realistic vision of how we get this mess that Obama has made turned around.
I don’t want glowing visions, I want common sense and I want solutions. We can’t get to glowing until we get out of the darkness.
I also want them to start talking about the millions of horrible Unconstitutional things Obama has been up to.
We have pretty much ran the gamut of sleaze and accusations aimed at each other.
I agree.
Agreed. The focus needs to be on Obama. And with one debate this month, maybe that can happen.
To the extent that the congressman is attempting to get his state’s or his district’s federal tax money back to his own people, I have no problem with earmarks.
With all the waste, fraud, and abuse, I have no money with my tax money returing home to be spent rather than being spent on high speed rail in California.
To the extent that the congressman is attempting to get his state’s or his district’s federal tax money back to his own people, I have no problem with earmarks.
With all the waste, fraud, and abuse, I have no PROBLEM with my tax money returing home to be spent rather than being spent on high speed rail in California.
Agreed. It’s the wasteful earmarks that have people upset.
Wasteful earmarks? Santorum voted to fund the National Endowment for the arts and raise the taxpayer funded amount to the NEA. Pure PORK! also, Santorum wants to allow felons (convicted arsonists, rapists, etc) to vote. No thanks!
Santorum voted for ethanol subsidies, Amtrak funding and some highway advisory system. He deserves to be slammed. I don’t see how he would be better than Obama.
Gingrich hasn’t been in congress for over a dozen years, so I think the statute of limitations is done on for him. He was the founder of the modern congressional earmarking, and I think he made a good argument for it at the time.
I also tend to agree with Inhofe, that it’s better to have the people we elect deciding how money is spent, than letting Obama do it.
But the problem is they approve each other’s wasteful spending because then the others approve theirs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.