Rush explained this perfectly yesterday: Earmarks are less than 1% of the Federal budget. It's a distraction mechanism by the Government Party.
Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.
I don’t get this obsession with banning earmarks. If the Congresscritters don’t decide where the pork goes, then Obama and his cronies make that call.
Rush explained this perfectly yesterday: Earmarks are less than 1% of the Federal budget. It's a distraction mechanism by the Government Party.
Honest question - is it necessary to have “earmarks?” The govt takes in $$. Each agency/dept. creates a budget (with as much detail as Congress insists on). Hopefully, each dept’s budget will be looked at separately going forward.
The budget, if clean, gets passed and the funds allocated. If the budget has junk in it, it gets rejected. Same for Congress’ budget itself.
Where (honestly) do the earmarks come in? The dept budgets should have enough specificity that they don’t have extra funds for projects to study bovine athletes foot or turning the local pawn shop into a “historic site and museum.” Why does the pork have to happen?
I’ll submit maybe we’re all naive on this - if you can help me out in understanding.
If we FROZE govt. spending. No % increase anywhere in the budget what would the impact be over time?
I fully believe we need to have actual cuts in spending, however, what would a $0 increase over the next few years mean?
“If the Congresscritters don’t decide where the pork goes, then Obama and his cronies make that call.”
If you downsize government the pork fat gets rendered out. Problem solved.
Come on, Chet! They don’t have to spend that money, period.
The House of Representatives decides where that money is spent and if the Senate puts it in, the Reps can take it out.