posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 05:15 PM
In at least one way, earmarks are like pornography: There’s no universally accepted definition. Potter Stewart, a justice on the Supreme Court,
famously said of pornography in 1964, “I know it when I see it.”
I don't see the big fuss over earmarks. They have been around a long time.
1. What is an earmark?
Is it sending money to a rural community to improve their sewage system?
Is it sending money to a specific hospital to help find a cure for an incurable disease?
Is it sending money to a place where your relatives benefit?
Is it sending money to a University to study pig intestines?
Part of the problem with earmarks is even Congress itself has no definition for it.
SAME SOURCE AS ABOVE
But if we are to eliminate earmarks in practice, lawmakers first must agree on what an earmark is.
2. People complain, complain, and complain. That is basically all they do.
Once a Congress member is up for reelection they usually reelect the member. Primarily for everything he or she has done for that state. This is how
Americans express how appreciative they are of all the funding the Congress member has acquired for their state.
So I guess it is safe to assume that the earmarks we complain about are the ones going to other states. Not the ones benefiting our own state.
3. It is legal. There is no law against it yet. Some of the earmarks may be unethical but Congress seldom reprimands its members for these so called
Even if it was illegal, Congress would merely change the wording to reflect a legal amendment. Either way Congress will find a way to keep its
All this trash talking and repeating the parties talking points about earmarks is ridiculous.
Why is trashing each other's candidate about earmarks so important?
When all politicians do it in one fashion or the other.