Reid: Earmarks are 'what we're supposed to do'

reply to post by kinda kurious


Are you being serious, with that question?

reply to post by WTFover


I am as serious as ebola since you seem to want to prohibit most forms of government funding.

Fair question, no?

Silly question from a non american....please educate me.

Is this the way US government was supposed to work? Companies go to public representatives and convince them in private to legislate for the procurement of things (for the military) that the military says it doesn't want or need?

Isn't that called corruption? How can they claim they are against 'waste' when this is how the system operates normally in plain sight?

I can understand a veto on a spending request, but how does it make sense be able to inflate a budget request with useless junk. Surely thats money that cant be spent on things that really are needed?

It seems odd when viewed from the UK. We have our own problems but different from this.

reply to post by WTFover


WTF, this is a case of waste of the taxpayers money and is a lot more of it too.

Tifton Gazette

I had to deal with this lab one time. I had a watermelon crop that came up something that was entirely unusable. At my hearing, 11 ag experts testified that I did nothing wrong to cause the problem. They still ruled in the favor of the seed company. I later found out that the seed company was giving them money. It should have been a red flag when they almost jumped over the table with a huge smile on their faces to get the business card of the seed representative that was against me.

reply to post by MBF


Agreed. And, it would be interesting to know how much that lab and the seed company with which you had your experience, have received, historically, in subsidies and research funding.

Originally posted by kinda kurious
I am as serious as ebola since you seem to want to prohibit most forms of government funding.

You are correct that I want to limit government funding of private industry. But, there is a huge difference in funding the CDC and another million dollars of peanut research. First and most obvious, one is for human life and the other is for a peanut.

I was opposed to TARP and the automaker bailouts. I do not subscribe to the premise of "too big to fail".

I am opposed to the $1 million for peanut research, for the same reason I am opposed to taxpayer money being given to pharmaceutical companies for research. It is corporate welfare. Why should I be forced give money to Pfizer to develop Advil, when they are going to profit from charging me for Advil?

reply to post by justwokeup


I can only speak for the military point of it....

Supposedly, a widget is needed by the DoD and a bid process is followed. The best competitor wins. Nothing amazing there other than it moves at a glacial pace. By the time the widget arrives in combat, it is usually out dated and requires an upgrade/modification/etc. Since the equipment gets used for decades, any item will have multiple models reflecting its update.

Since 9-11, that process has been streamed line somewhat. As a Soldier, I appreciate that. As a taxpayer, I have my concerns. It is a good thing good equipment gets to where it is needed for this war and not the next. Granted. However the exorbitant cost does not always guarantee a successful item. Junk still makes it through because the procurement process is SO convoluted.

I will not even venture into the politics of no bid contracts, selling the DoD what it never asked for, etc. That pretty much speaks for itself.