why earmarks are a bad thing. I understand that earmarks can be a bad thing. I’d like to know why some people consider all earmarks a bad thing.
For that matter, please also explain why all lobbyists are a bad thing.
Defending the liberal tradition in history, science, and philosophy.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 26 comments }
I don’t think lobbyists are inherently a bad thing. For one thing, they service they provide is protected by the First Amendment, “petition the government for redress of grievances”.
Earmarks, on the other hand, have become so corrupted that it’s hard to see how to clean up the process without banning them completely.
To the extent that lobbyists are employed to get the candy (an earmark to force all states to pay for one state’s (or more likely, one campaign donor’s or one corporation’s) pet project for which there is no national interest ), lobbyists and earmarks are like peas and carrots.
Everyone complains about corporations corrupting the political process. Getting rid of the candy jar would be a good start.
Inv A. DeSoda’s last blog post..Guns ‘n’ Quotes
Earmarks ARE NOT NECESSARY — all Congress has to do is develop a bill, debate it, and get it approved. That’s the power they were given under the Constitution.
Earmarks provide a way to get money for a project under the radar, a sleight of hand — “watch the stage, don’t look behind the curtain.”
Earmarks are taking money from one taxpayers pocket and putting it into another.
Earmarks are a way to play politics with money, getting support for a bill with a payoff rather than voting on the merits of the bill. Politics at best is based on the merits of the proposal, not a side-deal.
These attributes can cause/lead to excesses and corruption that burden available resources.
Inv,
maybe it’s a terminology thing, but I think earmarks generally also refer to projects for which there is a national interest.
Zach, maybe but every time I have heard the word earmark used, it was as a euphemism for pork barrel projects
Inv A. DeSoda’s last blog post..Guns ‘n’ Quotes
Lobbyists are the symptom, not the problem.
Inv A. DeSoda’s last blog post..Guns ‘n’ Quotes
Lobbyist are a bad thing when they have money to spare. The special interests lobby can outweigh the lobby of constituents and hence legislations and elected officials voting can be swayed. For that matter, I would make it illegal for companies to donate money to politicians for that matter, but that is another thing entirely.
~~~~~zach said: maybe it’s a terminology thing, but I think earmarks generally also refer to projects for which there is a national interest.
—————————————————————————
Correction, zach, earmarks are decidedly NOT associated with a “national interest”.
Like bridges to nowhere and museums in honor of corn and such things. THAT is what earmark spending is used for.
I have zero problem with lobbyists, or with so-called “special interests.” In fact, I increasingly grind my teeth whenever any politician promises to fight “the special interests.” I don’t blame them, because it works, but it’s just so damned stupid. EVERY interest is a “special interest” as long as it’s an interest YOU don’t share.
That said, it’s problematic if some lobbies are so powerful that a congressman can’t get re-elected without their cash. However, I think the solution to that, and to earmark reform, is simple: instant and full disclosure via the internet so we can all see who’s donating what to each candidate.
I feel *mostly* the same about earmarks by the way. There are two objections to them that I can see; one is that it encourages wasteful spending by causing all congressmen to compete on who can bring the most money home to their district, and it also winds up being free campaign advertising for whoever manages to bring the most bacon home.
Once again the solution for me is simple: greater transparency. That’s one thing I credit the “Porkbusters” for.
deadrody,
what you’re talking about is pork-barrel, which is a type of earmark. but the two terms do not seem to me to be interchangeable. P Mike’s objections to the contrary, it is congress’s job to decide where and how federal monies get spent.
What is usually meant by objections to earmarks is objections to ‘soft earmarks,’ monies that are allocated in a congressional comittee without being voted upon by the congress and with unclear providence.
It seems to me that if something is important enough to spend money on, it is important enough to vote on.
Dave Justus’s last blog post..A letter to Obama
Dave,
that certainly is true.
What Dave Justus said. If they’re going to spend my tax money on it, then I want it in the text of the bill that’s debated on the floor and signed by the President. The earmarks are a way to dodge accountability for the bribes Congress doles out.
As for lobbyists: nothing wrong with them at all. If individual lobbyists commit crimes or ethics breaches, punish them. But lobbying itself is political speech protected by the Constitution.
I agree utterly with Martin, but, I’ll nit-pick anyway: lobbying isn’t just free speech protected by the 1st amendment. It’s an activity that is singled directly out by the 1st amendment, which protects the right to petition government officials for redress of grievances. It’s right there in the plain text of the 1st amendment.
Any member of Congress who refuses to meet with lobbyists is demonstrating contempt for the very Constitution they’re sworn to respect.
Lobbying is of critical importance to a functioning, responsive republican form of government. Whether it’s farmers, or fishermen, or government employees, or gun owners, or gun crime victims, or pro-life or pro-choice, or oil producers, or environmentalists, or whatever–it’s completely legitimate activity. Nay, not just legitimate, it’s vital and indispensible.
It’s not surprising that a Muslim and a proud Obama-booster would ask “Gee, what’s wrong with corruption?”
I am a lobbyist.
Anyone who works to see legislation passed is a lobbyist. Not all of us are paid shills for any company or org.
I have no funding beyond my personal paycheck from my “day job”.
My lobbying activities are entirely self funded. I have no gazillionaire angels.
I think the problem with earmarks is that they appear to the public to be designed to conceal what they’re about.
We need a more open and transparent Congress.
Those on Capitol Hill have only a nodding acquaintance with the Internet, e-mail, etc. We still have Senators and Congressmen who think the Internet is some kind of toy or fad which will go away soon.
Just something to think about. ;>)
It’s not surprising that a Muslim and a proud Obama-booster would ask “Gee, what’s wrong with corruption?â€
That’s it. Scott, you’re no longer welcome here. Please go the hell away, you hateful, ignorant moron.
Anyone who thinks there’s no such thing as irrational fear and hatred of Muslims–i.e. Islamophobia–needs only read the frequent comments of idiots like “Scott.”
I second what Dean said. That was out of line, Scott
Inv A. DeSoda’s last blog post..Guns ‘n’ Quotes
It’s been a pattern of behavior with this particular moron. He’s been our worst offender since “Jimmy the Dhimmi” got his ass banned.
I can never decide when keeping these cretins around is useful since it illustrates perfectly that Islamophobia is as real and corrosive as we say it is, or if banning them immediately just helps keep discourse sane. I strive for a balance.
Thank you, Dean.
No, not for agreeing with me: for dumping Scott. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
As for agreeing with me: of course, you’re absolutely right. (Most people who agree with me are.) I hate labels, but I guess I’m an originalist: to understand what laws and compacts and contracts mean, you have to understand the context in which they arose. People who think the First Amendment is about protecting nude dancing and dirty words should check the history books: there wasn’t a lot of debate about nude dancing and dirty words during the founding of our country. Not that those activities can’t be protected speech; but there was intense concern over the King shutting down political speech he didn’t like. And most particularly, there was concern over him forbidding us to petition for the right to redress. So free speech rights got enshrined in the Bill of Rights SPECIFICALLY to protect political speech and lobbying. They’re fundamental rights.
Earmarks: Bad — Wastes taxpayer money, fuels corruption (see John Murtha and defense contractors).
Lobbyists: Not bad — just irritating, like lawyers. If lots of $$ is at stake for any particular industry, you need lobbyists to, er, lobby for you.
HankB
It’s like an irregular verb. I’m an activist, you’re a special interest, he’s a lobbyist.
Earmarks are also a fissure in the separation of powers. Going beyond setting the budget for an executive department, they dictate how that executive department is to be run. That is an executive function, not a legislative one. If they want to require a department to do something, they should pass a bill mandating it. They shouldn’t slip it in without a vote in the budget.
wow, this is an awesome thread. I learned a hell of a lot from it.
and, we even killed a cockroach too. Thanks guys.
Aziz Poonawalla’s last blog post..electronic intifada
Scott, I’ve learned to judge Aziz Poonawalla as just another American.
Anybody tough enough to take sit out a winter in Marshfield, Wisconsin and pay our high tax rate around here is good enough to be accepted, irrespective of religion or even whether he pours ketsup on his Chicago-style hot dogs.
So lay off.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
As many have pointed out, lobbyists are simply a part of the whole American experiment. They are as much a part of the government as any government agency. They perform a valuable service. As has been pointed out also, the only lobbyists who get called “special interests” are lobbyists for interests you don’t have an interest in.
I’ll pick one of the most reviled lobbies to make my point. Let’s examine the oil lobby. What does the oil lobby do? They work with Congress and the Executive branch to advance the economic interests of the oil industry. Is that a bad thing? Not if you are in the oil industry. In many cases not even if you are simply a CUSTOMER of the oil industry.
And who is a customer of the oil industry?
Oh, I guess all of us are, aren’t we?
Hmmm….. I guess if the oil lobby manages to get some legislation passed to allow drilling in ANWAR and my gas prices go down by a dollar, perhaps I might want to shake a few hands and buy a few drinks…
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Fitna?
Comments on this entry are closed.