President Obama added: "Now, let me be clear: Done right, earmarks give legislators the opportunity to direct federal money to worthy projects that benefit people in their district, and that's why I have opposed their outright elimination. I also find it ironic that some of those who railed the loudest against this bill because of earmarks actually inserted earmarks of their own -- and will tout them in their own states and districts.
Ah yes, the old Prisoner's Dilemma. Hey, if everyone is feeding at the trough, I am an idiot for starving my constituents.
What a leader would do is eliminate the incentives for everyone to behave like a pig instead of complaining about how legislators act in their own self interest.
4 comments:
I fear that the concern over earmarks is little more than political posturing. Do earmarks represent a significant portion of the overall budget? Is it worse under Democratic leadership than it is under Republicans?
No, I don't think it is worse under Democratic leadership than Republican.
The amount of money is now becoming meaningful.
It represents to me a failure of government and is therefore meaningful. I don't think individual congressmen should be able to appropriate taxpayers' money in this way.
Thanks for the response.
Is this pie chart accurate?
http://bit.ly/7Z780
Ignoring the editorial on that page, that's a tiny little 0.6% red slice of pie. If accurate, it suggests to me that, of all the possible targets of outrage, earmarks are a red herring.
I hope Texas secedes. THAT would be leadership.
Post a Comment