What is wrong with eliminating earmarks from proposed legislation?

Why do so many people get their panties in a twist when individuals want to remove earmarks from proposed and pending legislation? Do they not see how detrimental these little pet projects are to America as a whole? Or are they simply only looking out for number one, America be damned?|||They are essentially kick backs and vote buys. The American people want them gone. Even if your area is to recieve such a kickback you still pay for it and then some with increased taxes.





There is no valid reason for having earmarks. If a spending appropriation isn't worth voting on it's not worth spending money on either. If it cannot pass a vote on it's own merits it never should have been brought up in the first place.|||Nothing wrong with it, provided there there exist "realistic" accommodations for legitimate State projects. The Democratic Senator, getting 123 thousand to expand an airport that accommodates 4 flights a week,, 2 miles from his home and named after him, is fraud. The Democratic Senator, putting 150,000 towards the repair of a dilapidated bridge that provides access to 20,000 vehicles per week, is valid.


Everyone understands, these people are "supposed" to provide for their State. But not all these politicians understand you can't arbitrarily slip some "personal" or pet project into it.


This is what I believe they mean by "pork". If it's legitimate, BRING it out in the open for discussion. Otherwise, forget it.|||Earmarks have their place, in theory they're the little pieces of legislation that are insignificant and thus shouldn't take up time for debate.





Our legislative branch grinned to a near halt in the last Congress in part because one party decided to abuse the filibuster. At this point in time, if we did away with all earmarks -- the country would stop altogether.





I wouldn't want to get rid of the filibuster or earmarks -- I would, however, want to challenge the people who would abuse such practices.|||Why, yes. And why expect any less? Each time I try to discuss economics with a conservative their attitude is precisely focused on perceived near term interests of number one. America and the bigger picture be damned.


EDIT: Fair enough. I would like to move past partisanship. The irony is; the other side must want that too. Kinda crazy.|||The politicians give earmarks to their states in order to say "I have helped (state name) thus I should be re-elected. But it is a double edged sword for 2 reasons. We tax payers are paying for it so they really aren't giving us anything. Secondly they pass laws and regulations to control and restricted people and businesses which everyone complains about but keep electing the same fools that created people frustrations.|||Instead of eliminating earmarks, how about the Line-Item VETO???








1. REPEAL the 16th Amendment!!


2. DISBAND The FED!


3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc_-L4fyL鈥?/a>


Republican since before she was born鈥?and PROUD of it.|||It is a losing battle. After Rand Paul changed his position on them 2 days after winning the election there is nobody we can trust to eliminate them. It is a dying cause.|||The Citizens Against Public Waste keeps track of these useless earmarks, like a teapot museum. It's just a way of giving money to friends. I'm with you, get rid of them!