Seriously, what is the difference between appropriating and earmarking?

[margotb822]

It seems to me that if Congress is given the "power of the purse" and is designated to appropriate federal funds, how else would one do that without explicitly stating where funds would be going? I understand the concept of pork, but not the outrage against earmarks. What are they supposed to do, fly over the country and drop cash out of a plane?

[MannyGoldstein]

1. If A Republican Does It, It's "Appropriating"

If a Democrat does it, it's "earmarking".

Now you understand RepublicanSpeak.

[Avalux]

2. The Pukes have successfully associated "earmark" with BAD.

All they need to do is say the word and people automatically think waste. There really is no different between appropriations and earmarks.

[Bigmack]

3. I think we need to reframe this whole...

"earmarking" thing.

From now on, bills that put money into progressive/blue states will be called "progressive appropriations" bills. Bills that put money into regressive/red states will be called "pissing money away" bills.

I'm tired of those anti-tax and anti-government states bellying up to the bar and ordering doubles.

[valerief]

4. It's Polspeak nonsense. We're supposed to be making emotional decisions on

what words they use. You know, instead of thinking.

[terisan]

5. Using tax money from all taxpayers to benefit 1 congressional district's power players.

or residents that also enables the congressional representative to get re-elected.

It undermines the "common good" and finances projects that can't stand on their own merits. Like building bridges to sparsely occupied islands owned by close associates of a politician so that the associates can make a fortune using other peoples money (taxpayer) with little or no benefit to the taxpayers.

It is also a corruption conduit.

[margotb822]

7. So, it's more subjective than objective

What is an earmark to me might not be to someone else.

[terisan]

8. Not subjective. nt

[stillcool]

9. I always thought it was the job..

of my representative to 'lobby' the federal government for those 'earmarks' that benefit my state. Just because someone from Alaska lobbies for a bridge to nowhere, does that mean that federal dollars can not be used to fix a crumbling bridge in my state? Why do I pay federal taxes?

[terisan]

12. For the common good. It is the job of your state to take care of intrastate.

Bridge repair can be funded from user taxes (tolls) and state taxes of any type you choose. When I visit NYC I have to pay high tolls to use most bridges. This also encourages me to use buses and other forms of mass transportation.

Why should I subsidize a bridge in your state that I may never use?

[stillcool]

13. On Federal Highways?

Luckily we are a state that is loaded with industry, universities, and ports. Those federal dollars that go to any R & D, or for managing our ports, or the other various federally funded, can all be rescinded. That should work out really good for the country as a whole, and you in particular.

[terisan]

14. Federal highways paid by federal gas tax. I don't understand the rest of your post

Are you saying that I should be forced to pay for your endeavors because you believe that it will benefit me?


If you are a state loaded with industry, universities, and ports---why won't you spend your own money on your infrastructure?

[stillcool]

16. No..I don't think you should be forced..

to pay anything. I think all our tax dollars should go to the Pentagon, and the states should take care of themselves. Who needs government, right?

Here are some federally funded R&D projects:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federally_funded_research_and_development_center

[terisan]

17. I assume you are being facetious re your comment about the Pentagon.

In terms of maintaining intrastate infrastructure the voters of a state are better able to set priorities and tax themselves for projects they agree are needed. A federal role might be involved if, in setting priorities within a state, individual civil rights were violated; or interstate commerce is involved; or a massive disaster occurs that is beyond the resources of a specific state to handle.

There is much research that is best handled by central government but most earmarks are not of this type.

Decisions about local matters are best made locally. If those decisions violate any person's civil rights or infringe upon the rights or welfare of people in neighboring states, then there is a role for federal court intervention and executive branch enforcement.

[stillcool]

18. So, you are saying the taxes paid..

to the Federal Government should be used for what? How much money does your state get in Federal Government Funding? Do you know?

[notesdev]

6. Easy

Appropriations is the financial function of the House of Representatives.

Earmarks are bribes paid by one legislator to another using your money.

[terisan]

10. Good contrast. nt

[Bread and Circus]

11. Not sure but the real crime is how earmarks become a kickback for political contributors.

Senator A gets lots of campaign money from Company Y.
Senator A the earmarks federal money to be funnelled back to industry in their state served by Company Y.
Company Y gets a huge return on investment for their campaign contribution.

In any other arrangement, it's illegal. But, because it makes politicians and corporations rich, it's the status quo.

And that's why we have a broken health care system and an ever hungry defense industry, among other fucked up things.

The money spent on earmarks isn't the problem as much as it is how it influences politics.

[Winterblues]

15. Earmarks are for a particular project and can not be used for anything other.

Appropriations on the other hand are for a general field such as highways appropriations and can be spent however the Governor wants..If a Congressman has a debt to [pay to a campaign contributor they will "earmark" a bill so the money has to be spent for that particular project and in effect reward their contributor. They are all legal and necessary but earmarks carry a stench about them.