Congressional Earmarks

Con has still not offered a definition of "earmark" or a resolution. Wikipedia is not the best source for many things, but I didn't see anything controversial in their definition of earmarks. If Con wants a different definition, he should propose it. Other definitions seem to amount to the same thing: A requirement that revenue be spent on a specific project or purpose, therefore intercepting the money before it is pooled with other revenue and appropriated as part of the General Fund. . http://www.jwpcivitasinstitute.org... set aside, designate for a special purpose (i. e. money) . http://dictionary.babylon.com... . .. federal budget expert Brian Riedl at the Heritage Foundation said an earmark is "anytime Congress specifies who will receive a government grant or contract, anytime they list an entity, specific recipient or location. " . http://www.washingtonpost.com... [ The definition from the Executive Branch: "An inclusion to a law by a member of Congress to specify funds for a particular purpose, bypassing executive branch merit-based or competitive allocation processes or otherwise limiting the ability of the executive branch to manage aspects of funds allocation. " . http://www.america.gov... (Note that subsequent reform legislation has eliminated specific recipients. ) Con now says "I am arguing against the insertion of specific appropriations without public vetting or competition. " I agree, and that is the current situation with respect to earmarks under the reforms already enacted. I gave the reference in the first round. So we are now in the situation where earmarks are vetted, yet the spending in the Stimulus Package, for example, which went through the authorization process, is not vetted. Con also argues, "I'm arguing against spending federal dollars for local purposes. If it only benefits one area, that area should pay for it. " That's a different debate. The turtle tunnel and most of the rest of the Stimulus Package is the spending of general taxes for local purposes, and it is being done without earmarks. If Con wanted to debate a subject other than earmarks, why did he title his debate "Congressional Earmarks"? Con claimed "If you are afraid of any public vetting and competition for your expenditures, you are admitting it doesn't have merit. " I assume by "you" he means the Congressional proponent of the spending. I agree, and I would have much preferred that the Stimulus spending projects were vetted, but that did not happen through the authorization process that Con claims to prefer. 4.1 Con says, "if my logic is true in one place, and it happens to also be true in another, that doesn't prove an error in my logic. " Huh? Explain. 4.2 Con argues, "Taxing and spending for the welfare of any individual state or area is reserved for that respective government" It depends on whether the local spending relates to a national problem. Military bases are built in specific districts, for example, so spending for that base promotes the welfare of that local area. Spending on port facilities only benefits port cities directly, but it treats a national problem of interstate commerce. If there was a national problem with shrinking turtle populations, it's possible that a turtle tunnel might be justified as a matter of national concern . .. although I doubt it. The point is that what affects "general welfare" must be determined on a case-by-case basis. There are many pork barrel projects that have nothing to do with national welfare, but that is unrelated to whether they are fed through earmarks or through the authorization process. Con has given no references to support any of his contentions. I agree with Con's disapproval of unvetted pork barrel projects, but Con erred in equating that with earmarks. Under the reformed earmark process, earmark spending is more likely to be vetted than under the authorization process.