When you were a kid, freshmen didn't get to insert upwards of $15 million in bills. And even veterans like Murtha weren't directing millions to build office buildings that will never be occupied. I was surprised to see today (in the WSJ) that even Heath Shuler has over $10 million in earmarks. Pretty lame, considering he ran against them.

What would Congress do if the GOP regains the House next year, and actually bans earmarks? If McCain is President, expect him to press hard on this point.

When I was a kid $15 million was a dollar. All the earmarks combined are such a trifling sum it's a mark of lunacy to obsess over it.

Congress doesn't ban what Americans want.

When we were kids, Heath Shuler would've been told to be seen and not heard until about, oh, his 4th House term. Of course, that was back in the days where the Dems had a 100-seat majority and didn't have to worry about holding on to some backwater seat for a Heath Shuler who would end up voting with the Republicans 60% of the time, either.

Earmarks are both a price to pay for holding onto to party power and a guarantee that your pet project wouldn't be subject to the whims of a future Appropriations chairman.

Earmarks are the coinage of Congress. They are how support is drummed up for bills and are how Representatives and Senators tell their consituents that they are working for them.

Note - the first six frigates for the US Navy were all built in different shipyards in different states instead of concentrating in one or two places for efficiency. A little military pork as the price of support.

Posted by: Mikey at December 21, 2007 9:36 AM

When you have a 60%+ issue, it is stupid not to use it.

While you are correct about the amounts (relative to Soc. Sec & Medicare), the process is still corrosive. The average voter knows that the processes by which this money is doled out is likely corrupt (or gamed).

They also wonder what a nation with a $70 trillion unfunded liability problem is doing building bridges to nowhere while others are collapsing.

This isn't about "obsessing." It is about using a stick with which to beat scumbags in both parties.

The best "earmark" to run on is a tax cut for all your constituents.

I wonder how well Kucinich and Paul have done in bringing home the bacon. They must be doing something right to keep getting reelected. I find it hard to believe that they are both in the kind of district that would support a McDermott where being a political goofball is the best possible constitutent service.

Bruno,

I have one thing to say about the "$70 Trillion unfunded liability problem:" Fleming v Nestor (1960).

And if you think that the Feds cannot go that route due to social pressure, take a gander at the responses to this lady down in NOLA protesting the tearing down of abandoned housing projects:

http://blog.nola.com/updates/2007/12/housing_officials_claim_surplu.html

60%+ issue, Bruno? Ya, right. Lord make me moral, but not just yet. Everyone wants to rob selected Peter to pay for collective Paul....
OJ, the Porkbusters pulled it off cleanly. Earmarks have gone back up to a level where they can get theirs again, while still being too pure to touch the base clay. If we end up betraying Iraq, or more of our service men die, our hands are clean, right?

Unfunded liabilities don't exist.