Would banning congressional earmarks save money?

[VF500]

Let's see what folks actually know about the budget.

 

[tacomancer]

Some, but not much.

United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Total descretionary spending is about 12% of the budget and I believe earmarks are around 5 or 6%. I am not absolutely sure because some things could be categorized as earmarks or not earmarks while other things are most certainly earmarks.

 

[samsmart]

I don't mind earmarks. However, I think there should be a constitutional amendment stating that a high percentage of money paid by federal taxes in a state should go to federal projects within that state. So congressmen and senators who add earmark use mostly tax money collected from within their state to fund their projects.

 

[ksu_aviator]

Without earmarks, the votes couldn't have been bought to get the Bail-out, Stimulus or HCR monstrosities passed congress. So yes, the banning of earmarks would save the country money. As for a normal budget, on the surface the answer is no. Earmarks are just designations for where the money should go. However, just like the three bills I listed above, the budget is inflated to allow room for numerous earmarks so that each Senator and Congressman can say they brought home the bacon (i.e. libraries named after thme).

 

[VF500]

Without earmarks, the votes couldn't have been bought to get the Bail-out, Stimulus or HCR monstrosities passed congress. So yes, the banning of earmarks would save the country money. As for a normal budget, on the surface the answer is no. Earmarks are just designations for where the money should go. However, just like the three bills I listed above, the budget is inflated to allow room for numerous earmarks so that each Senator and Congressman can say they brought home the bacon (i.e. libraries named after thme).

That, in a nutshell, is the problem with earmarks. They are the food stamp economy of the congress. They're used to buy and sell favors and influlence. If there was a budget with fixed spending limits, it wouldn't matter. Since a balanced budget (or any budget at all like this year) hasn't happened for years, earmarks are leakage and erode the moral fiber of congress.

 

[samsmart]

That, in a nutshell, is the problem with earmarks. They are the food stamp economy of the congress. They're used to buy and sell favors and influlence. If there was a budget with fixed spending limits, it wouldn't matter. Since a balanced budget (or any budget at all like this year) hasn't happened for years, earmarks are leakage and erode the moral fiber of congress.

Sometimes, earmarks are the only way to get needed facilities, such as utilities, to poorer areas who cannot afford them on their own.

 

[ksu_aviator]

Sometimes, earmarks are the only way to get needed facilities, such as utilities, to poorer areas who cannot afford them on their own.

How about addressing that issue with another mechanism that doesn't facilitate billions in wasteful spending?