right - but problem is: Multiply by 435 and it gets really expensive.
Earmarks are what Congress used to buy-off opposition. "This is a bad bill" "Here's $15 mil you can hand out" "OK, it's a good bill."
-
-
-
actually earmarks don't increase spending. Money already assigned to department, congressman can just direct it.
-
but they reduce incentive to cut spending in the overall bill.
-
fair enough. Worth noting the distinction IMO.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
helped prevent gridlock tho . . . tradeoffs.
-
sad though if our solution to gridlock is payola.
-
agreed.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
EarMarks = One congress man bribing the other.
-
look up the definition of a bribe, then get back to us
-
core function of govt is to spend money on services for citizens.
-
earmarks don't go to congress people's bank acct, they go to fund services for citizens. Not a bribe.
-
If senator gets elected promising to expand national parks, & she negotiates an earmark to do it
-
That is doing her job. It's not a bribe. Voters and courts can tell the difference
-
but in many cases, earmarks were used to steer contracts/projects to lawmakers pals & donors
- 6 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
politics worked for a long time this way, and it wasn't all horrible.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@Heminator Same as it ever was..Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.