I love the idea of earmarks. They get a bad rap, mainly because they are used wrong in today's politics. An earmark basically directs money to a certain project or piece of legislation. They are used a lot in Congress to fund pork projects but I think all spending bills should require the use of earmarks. Why? Simple. Earmarks direct where the money goes, right? Ok, well, shouldn't every single cent spent by the government be allocated to certain things? Money is fungible and if tossed all together in a general fund money can be spent on whatever. I firmly believe that every cent that is to be spent ought to be earmarked for what it is intended for. If Congress is going to allocate $10 billion to buy airplanes we should be able to follow exactly where every single penny of that cash went. The only way to do that is to use earmarks. That way we know where it is going and they can't hide it. Respond.
I don't think it's so much the ease of their "abuse" it's that they are not required for every dollar that is to be spent. Why do we just give the Executive department a bunch of money and expect them to spend it the right way? According to the Constitution Congress is in control of the purse strings. Congress should allocate where each and every cent is going so we can follow the money. Take the Defense Department for example. CBS details how the DoD lost trillions of dollars. If that money were earmarked (directed by law to be used only for what it was intended for) we would know where that money went. But because they are just handed a bunch of cash and told to spend it they can also just lose it with no accountability.
And localize spending at that. Better than Federal spending committees going on a spree across the world, I guess.
Ear marks per say aren't bad, like everything else, our scumbag politician abuse them. Government needs to quit worrying about Wall street and start regulating themselves.
Why do I need to give my money to someone who knows how to spend it better for me if I already know how to best spend my money? How about I have the right to opt out if I don't want to pay for a $10 billion in airplanes?
I don't think kingmonkey intended for this to become an argument about taxation. I agree, earmarks should be required for government spending.
No, it's not an argument about taxation. Mirvs knows my stances on taxes. Since we can't get rid of taxes right now I think we should at least know where our stolen money is going.
I'd have to agree with OP. But it's amazing how something that should promote transparency in government actually gets abused to help professional politicians get re-elected. The more we educate the public of the actual rules of government the more we can hold the people in the government accountable for bending or breaking those laws.
errr isn't that just simple accounting. i think the word "earmark" means something else, linguistically and cognitively. it implies another level of intent. it's is not a budgeted sum, nor credited, but it carries the characteristics of both...sort of...and contextually it is understood as money that is spent for the sake of spending it......i'd find a different word than earmark....like purchase order.
Yea, ideally we wouldn't have a Government, or taxes, or anything of that nature, but since we gotta deal with it for the time being, it's better to be able to accurately keep track of where money goes.