MY earmarks are golden..yours are SHIT!

[SoCalDem]

Since almost EVERY elected legislator "does it", why not just allocate UP FRONT, how much each state is entitled to (dollar amount), and have the state delegations (house & senate) get together and figure out which projects they will fund.. Have a deadline, vote on it, pass it and publish it online..

and then make all other legislation single-issue bills
'
problem solved.

[Kurska]

1. That is a really good idea.

So obviously it will never ever be implemented.

[maxsolomon]

2. base it on proportion of tax-base contribution to federal government

net-contributor states get more, rugged individualist welfare states (alaska, i'm looking at you) get f'd.

[Motown_Johnny]

8. + infinity

That is the problem. Many Red States take more than they contribute. Then the people in those states complain about how much they are taxed. It also makes it look like the (R)s in charge of the state are doing a better job than they are, since they are getting so much help.

Conversely, many Blue States contribute more than they receive from the Federal Government, making it appear that they are not doing as good as a job as they are.


If we can take some measure to level the playing field it will help shine a light on just how well progressive policies work and how poorly conservative ones do.

[SoCalDem]

10. and then there would be no game-playing over important legislation

and all "projects' would rise or fall based on their importance..

Hell, they could even issue a "menu" at the start of the year, and let "the peeeeeeeeople" decide what they wanted:)

[Angry Dragon]

3. Gee, that makes sense

You could never get elected

:applause: :yourock:

[texastoast]

4. Something sensible out of Washington?

What a concept.

[proud2BlibKansan]

5. That's an excellent idea! Senator Bond is retiring and the local paper printed a list

of projects he had brought to the state in earmark money. Bond is a republican and I've never been a fan but I have to admit he left a legacy. There are many buildings, roads and bridges here that he is responsible for. As I looked over that list I couldn't help but wonder how the earmark haters would like crossing the MO River to get to the northern half of this city if there was no bridge (built by earmarks.) :shrug:

[Cronus Protagonist]

6. That would eliminate the "chess playing"

...and render Obama's apologists with nothing to say when he emulates G. W. Bush in his political declinations.

[Bigmack]

7. Earmarks are less than half of 1% of the budget....

not even worth talking about.

This discussion about them is a distraction from things like the military budget.

[SoCalDem]

9. Deal with the easy stuff first..get them out of the way and then fight over the important stuff

:)

[Bigmack]

11. Problem is... there will be a big flap, then...

a grinning compromise... a photo op... and the simple-minded will think... "There, we've solved a lot of the problem. We don't have to cut anything more.. well, maybe some welfare and foreign aid."

This whole thing is illusion... like a pro wrestling match. The script is already written, and it doesn't include any serious cuts to the military.