Is "Earmarks" merely another misleading GOP anti-government meme?

[Armstead]

Earmarks is being made a dirty word. The idea of the Federal government funding things like bridges, research, community development, etc. is being branded as an evil thing.

In all fairness, perhaps the process leaves much to be desired. And there are certainly boondoggles, and most likely corrupt cronyism, among them.

However, the McCain Conservatives is misusing it as they have often done (such as welfare queens) to slash and burn the role of government and make society entirely vulnerable to the abuses of the "free market."

[SoonerPride]

1. They wanna privatize everything so they can make more money

The republicans are liars and thieves and pedophiles.

[Hippo_Tron]

2. It's misleading because the Republicans literally do it just as much as the Democrats if not more

The earmark process leaves something to be desired because it is undemocratic and powerful Senators and Congressmen can stick pet projects into larger legislation and the rest of the congress usually has to vote yes on the larger bill.

Pork, needless earmarks, and agriculture subsidies with the exception of the very few that go to small farmers, are policies that cost the American people billions of dollars and benefit only a select few on the receiving end.

Republicans ALWAYS talk about doing something about these, but when they get in office they don't do jack shit about it. Remember that the only president in recent history that balanced the budget was Bill Clinton.

[Armstead]

4. I guess the difference between pork and earmarks is important

Part of this is about process. Earmarks are undemocratic when they are tacked onto larger bills with no chance to remove them.

Pork is a matter of opinion. Pretty much everything the gov does can be called pork. My necessary infrastructure project could be seen by others as pork. One social service program might be considered necessary and humane and necessary by some, and a pork laden "socialistic" program by otehrs....

[dflprincess]

3. And then there's little Normie Coleman running an ad

where he tries to take all the credit for getting the funding to rebuild the 35W bridge. I guess earmarks aren't all bad.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

5. IMO "earmarks" are the "bright, shiny object" to distract discussion of the 99%

of government spending that is NOT done via earmarks.

Why is John McCain so popular with Charlie Black, Phil Gramm, and other high-paid lobbyists?

Obviously, it's because of his POWER. Republicans have controlled the Senate for most of the past three decades. Even now that Democrats have a bare Senate majority, McCain has seniority that translates into control over how and where hundreds of billions of Federal dollars are spent, and over trillions of dollars in corporate profits directly due to "deregulation".

One measure of a Senator's power is the extent to which his or her state gets more in Federal expenditures per capital than it pays in per capita Federal taxes. Earmarks are small potatoes compared to the tens of billions Red states like Arizona and Alaska rake in from Frederal taxes paid in states like Illinois and Delaware.

Why does AZ get $900 per person more than their citizens pay in Federal taxes, while Illinois gets $1600 less? (See the table in Post #1 below).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IMO, many Republican Senators have amassed so much power in committees because of fundamental corruption in the politics of their state by the same corporate interests, election after election. Otherwise, there would be turnover and rotation of parties in and out of control over statewide offices.

In any case, in talking about earmarks, we must not lose sight of the distribution of the other 99 percent of Federal spending.

McCain and Palin don't HAVE to turn to earmarks to get their states more of their fair share of Federal spending. Because of past seniority of their Senators (McCain, Stevens, etc.) and Reps, McCain can make sure Arizona gets far more than its fair share of Federal spending.

The table in my next post (from http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/02statab/fedgov.pdf ) is for 1999 because the project that created it lost its funding when its patron Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan quit the Senate and the Y2K election was stolen. But what it shows very likely still is true. It ranks the home states of the Presidential and VP candidates by the extent to which per capita Federal spending outweighs per capita federal taxes paid.

Like most Blue States, Illinois (#47) and Delaware (#43) rank near the bottom. Like most Red States, Alaska (#6) and Arizona (#20) rank in the top half.

A state like Arizona gets its Federal loot upfront, because its Senators are so powerful. Other states like Illinois and Delaware have little more than earmarks with which to fight to at least get back for their citizens what they pay in Dederal taxes.

IMO, this is the real hypcrisy in Republican crocodile tears over earmarks: Blue states are scrambling to get a piece of the less than 1 percent in Federal spending that is made in earmarks. Meanwhile, Red states have built a corporate-government complex over the last three dacades that routes the other 99 percent disproportionately to Red states.

What do you think?

[ProgressiveEconomist]

6. Per Capita Federal Balance of Payments by State, 1999

From http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/02statab/fedgov.pdf ,
page 313

"U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United
States: 2002
Federal Government Finances and Employment
No.462. Per Capita Federal Balance of Payments by State: 1999

[In dollars, except rank. For year ending Sept. 30.
Represents federal spending within the borders of
the 50 states, including defense and excluding
interest payments on the federal debt. Each state
runs a balance of payments surplus or deficit with
the federal government. Put another way, each state
indirectly subsidizes or is being
subsidized by the other states]


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Federal spending in the state
. . . .  Balance. . . . . . . ------------------------------
. . . .. of pay-. .. Federal. . . .1 . . . . Non-. . Social.
. . . .. ments. Rank taxes. . Total Defense defense Security

Alaska.... 2,777 . 6. 4,872 . 7,649. 2,194 . 3,786 .. 657
Arizona..... 904. 20. 4,713 . 5,617. 1,361 . 1,689. 1,474
Delaware. -1,025. 43. 5,876 . 4,851 .. 615 . 1,458. 1,578
Illinois. -1,669. 47. 6,260 . 4,592 .. 354 . 1,442. 1,501

X Not applicable. 1 Includes categories of spending,
not shown separately.

Source: Jay H. Walder and Herman B. Leonard, Tauber
Center for State and Local Government and John F.
Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University,
The Federal Budget and the States, annual.