Azelma wrote:
I like this move. Although it is clearly a political saving-face type move, I think it won't hurt the deficit, and might even help a little bit.
dek wrote:
this also goes for any politician who talks about earmarks btw. stopping earmarks will not actually reduce the budget a single dime, because earmarking is not increasing the budget but rather allocating it specifically. and even if it would lower the budget, it would be by a retardedly small amount.
While it may not reduce the budget, it will make sure the funds are allocated to things that actually help the country. My mother worked at the Ohio Department of Education, and there were so many employees running programs that only existed because of earmarks. Not surprisingly, these programs more often than not simply wasted money and did little to nothing for education.
Anything that stops earmarks is good in my book.
Not necessarily. Earmarks include wasteful projects, but they also include the legislatures general capacity to tell the executive branch what to do, which is an important part of a democratic system.
Without the earmark system, you lose your ability to tell the federal bureaucracy to stop doing stupid shit with your money.
And even if every earmark ever was wasteful (which they aren't), again it's like .001% of the budget, so it's still not even remotely a serious topic to discuss. It is the epitome of a meaningless political symbol.
The same goes for a pay freeze for federal employees. That saves a couple hundred thousand dollars, maybe a few million? We waste trillions.
It's like taking a single drop of water out of the ocean and saying you stopped the tide.

Akina: bitch I will stab you in the face