Thought: The ban of earmarks was the final straw that keeps parties from working together

[Blue_Adept]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earmark_(politics)

When you don't have any horsetrading for earmarks to use as a way to get people onto your side, legalized bribing if you prefer, there's no longer any incentive to work outside of your party with someone that might have similar views but needs some coaxing.

There are bad earmarks but there are a lot that did a lot of good for a lot of districts. It's always stuck in the back of my head that the ban and dwindling down of it was something that just made everything far more divided as it cut one of the reasons to work across the aisle, especially when you have states with both republicans and democrats serving in the house/senate.

[procon]

1. I've had that same thought as well.

Earmarks, when used judiciously, boosted local economies and allowed states to afford needed civil works projects to benefit their citizens. When politicians inserted an earmark into an appropriations bill, usually in exchange for their vote, it just shifted funds from one category to another without increasing public spending. Unfortunately there was little oversight and greedy politicians screwed it up for everyone. When Republicans killed the earmarks program it shifted more power to the executive branch who now gets to decide where to spend the discretionary money, leaving Congress stuck in gridlock ever sense.


.

[meadowlark5]

2. I've been saying that for years.

Once that was taken away there was no incentive to work together. Working together for the simple good isn't enough. But if they could get funding for an arts district or some infrastructure, then it might be worth negotiating. Now the only thing they are concerned about are donors and keeping campaign financing and doing the bidding of their donors.

[oberliner]

3. Are we arguing in favor of bringing back earmarks?

Seriously?

[bettyellen]

4. Well its naive to think government can happen without some horse trading, everyone does it for

Military spending, even ex hippy peace nick independents. everyone tries to advocate for their local economy too. It’s an integral part of representation.

[oberliner]

5. Obama: "If a bill comes to my desk with earmarks inside, I will veto it."

From his State of the Union address in 2011.

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2011/01/25/remarks-president-state-union-address

[bettyellen]

9. Yeah, Im aware they obtained a bad reputation because they got out of hand. Your point?

[oberliner]

11. That is my point

[Demsrule86]

14. You don't end things you improve them...the fact is Congress has not worked together since.

[oberliner]

16. Sorry, I'm with Obama on this one

[Demsrule86]

20. It would help advance more deals and send road money to the states which will never happen

any other way. Don't let the perfection be the the enemy of good...we need a functioning government.

[bettyellen]

18. Thanks- if a person cant distinguish between making a fair deal and corruption-

Maybe they just like wagging their finger at people.

[Demsrule86]

19. I agree.

[Demsrule86]

13. I love Pres. Obama but I don't agree with this.

[Demsrule86]

15. Yes I am in favor of bringing back earmarks.

[OhioBlue]

6. I have had the same thought for a long time.

I agree with everything you said. I think it increased the divide in Congress and reps/Senators from the same State but different parties may still find issues to collaborate on, but they seem to then retreat to their respective party camps.

[elocs]

7. In the search for perfection, the Law of Unintended Consequences bites back. n/t

[Scruffy1]

8. The whole public perception of earmarks is wrong.

An earmark simply says that the money already appropriated must be use for the purpose intended. They are most often used for transportation funding. A good example of an earmark is the money appropriated to Minnesota to build a new 35W bridge across the Mississippi after the old one collapsed. It clearly states the money the Feds give the state has to be used for that purpose. It is not a blank check. Very rarely does an earmark raise spending. Even at is worst it is only a wrangling over where the money is spent inside the state. Usually this is all worked out among the congress critters of each state. To me at least it was only a "phony" Republican issue
that was propounded by ass hats like Ron Paul. He could claim he didn't do earmarks because he supported other congress members earmarks so they in return gave his district their share. It's just a shell game.

[Lee-Lee]

23. Like anything, it can be abused and was

It it was the stories of when they were absurd and spent on irresponsible things that drive the headlines.

The “Bridge to nowhere”, half a million dollars for a teapot museum, lots that were spent at industries with connections to the person requesting, etc.

If they are brought back I would like a system where each Senator and Representative gets a certain number per year, they have to be clearly identified as to who requested that specific item, and there has to be a justification for the spending earmark written into it to make them argue why it’s a priority.

That should hopefully keep them under control when brought back and avoid the excesses and stupidity that drove the narrative to eliminate them.

[TeamPooka]

10. It keeps reps from bringing jobs to their districts the easy way so they don't even try anymore

other ways

[Demsrule86]

12. That is true...and it helped states with road projects too.

[Blue_Adept]

17. Yep. We threw out the baby with the bath water.

[Demsrule86]

21. Yes it was a foolish thing to do...and in our quest for purity...we made things worse.

You will never get deals without earmarks.

[Blue_Adept]

22. Exactly

For every foolish boondoggle there were dozens of good things accomplished with them.