Anyone want to guess how much eliminating all earmarks is going to reduce the yearly deficit by? 500 Billion? 100 Billion? 1 Billion? 100 Million? Apparently, none of those answers is correct. The actual amount that the deficit will be reduced by eliminating the practice of earmarks is $0.00. I was reading an article on CNN and it seems the truth is that earmarks are not actually extra money that the government spends. It is money that is already allocated to agencies in the annual budget and all earmarks do is set aside that money for specific projects. So, if Senator Jack Ass puts in an earmark for a million dollars for a library in his home state, it doesn't increase the budget by a million dollars. It just takes a million dollars already allocated in the budget for the Department of Homeland Museums (or whoever) and tells them to spend that money on that particular museum instead of some other museum. Net effect on the budget...zero dollars. That is not to say that earmarks should not be eliminated because they are obviously doled out based upon what congress person has the most power and not what the best project might actually be. And they are also rife with the possibility of corruption and influence. But their effect on the deficit is apparently nil. http://money.cnn.com/2010/11/15/news/economy/earmarks_ban/index.htm?hpt=T1
Republicans are against earmarks? Really? Do tell! One of the whacko right's female windbags wants to redefine what earmarks are so they can take them without calling too much attention to them.
So basically earmarks are a misalocation of funds if the other guy does it but a malalocation if you do it and get held responsible. Sounds like politics to me.
