Do you agree with Republican leadership’s proposed legislation
that would eliminate earmarks in bills?
THIS WEEK’S QUESTION:
“Do you agree with Republican leadership’s proposed legislation that would eliminate earmarks in bills?” Yes: 9 No: 3
? Karen Anderson: “I don’t like sneaking special projects into legislation having no bearing on them. Even so, Sarah Palin was all for earmarks as long as the money was for Alaska.”
? Chris Bryant: “Yes, however I expect that the majority of the talk is political posturing and won’t result in real reforms.”
? Bob Chidester: “Yes. We are past the point where we can afford this frivolous use of taxpayer’s money. Why should taxpayers in California pay for a bridge to nowhere in Alaska and why should taxpayers in Alaska pay for a freeway pass to nowhere in Morgan Hill? Now we’ll have to see if the Republican leadership has the guts to go through with this.”
? David Cohen: “Yes. Earmarks must be eliminated as part of the budget balancing.”
? Mary Anne Groen: “Although I don’t often agree with Republican leadership, I find little evidence of accountability in earmarks even under supposed reform. After reading the Seattle Times article titled, ‘Despite reforms, Congress Hides $3.5B in Defense Earmarks’ I have little faith that the ‘ends justifies the means.’ ”
? Dennis Kennedy: “Yes! But an alternative approach is needed to allow much-needed projects like the Llagas Creek Flood Control project in Morgan Hill to get funded.”
? Julian Mancias: “No. Ultimately I think earmarks do more good than harm.”
? Henry Miller: “Finally, the Republicans are agreeing with something that ‘the other side’ has advocated for who-knows-how-long. But who cares? Let’s get rid of pork with its ‘bridges to nowhere’ regardless of who takes credit.”
? Jeff Nunes: “Yes. Not because it will make significant changes in the deficit, but because it’s a step toward changing the culture of Washington D.C. and the attitude of our federal government. Under Democrat and Republican control, the culture of earmarks has led to things such as 2,000-page bills that do not get read, but a representative will vote for it if it ‘brings home the bacon’ for their district, no matter the consequences. Although largely symbolic, it is also an attempt at change, and one President Obama claimed to support when he was running.”
? Lisa Pampuch: “No. I’m concerned that banning earmarks is not in keeping with the Constitution’s division of powers. Further, it’s not that earmarks are inherently good or bad, just as automobiles are not inherently good or bad because they’re useful and they’re dangerous. The process needs to be fixed primarily by increasing transparency.”
? Jeff Smith: “Absolutely. Earmarks serve no function other than helping re-elect corrupt politicians. They are a perversion of the process originally set up by our Founding Fathers. They are emblematic of the culture of corruption, dishonesty and gamesmanship that exists, and both parties are guilty.”
? Steve Staloch: “No. Earmarks play an important role in the balance of power: Without earmarks, too much power would reside in the executive branch when it comes to spending decisions. However, earmark requests submitted by senators for the sole benefit of their state should be required to include an offsetting reduction in current federal funding to that state. If implemented, earmarks would become as rare as bipartisan voting.”
Vote in
