Earmarks

There is a common misconception that earmarks are merely "pork barrel" spending of government money. Ultimately, however, a system without earmarks would not be able to survive. Framework: It is the burden of the Pro to advocate a world without earmarks, because if earmarks are, on balance, bad, then a world without earmarks is better than a world with earmarks. The Con will argue that a world with earmarks is better than a world without. C1 Allocating Funds. It is a core function of Congress to allocate funds directly to programs. Earmarks allocate funds to programs that would normally not recieve money. For example, "the mapping of the human genome, for example, was made possible because of an earmark." [1]. If Congress does not use earmarks, then this responsibility falls on the executive branch, which may not adequately understand the needs of constituents which their representatives know best. Earmarks fund vital programs; anything from highway fixes to addressing the needs of state universities. My opponent must show us how these programs would receive adequate funding without earmarks. "The mapping of the human genome, for example, was made possible because of an earmark." [1] C2 Transparency Republican Judd Gregg explains: "In the context of a "disciplined budget," some earmarks are good, as long as they are transparent so it's clear how the money is spent, who asked for it and who the recipient is." After the 110th Congress, earmarks were drastically reformed. Congressmen must now post all earmark requests on their websites, and must sign paperwork indicating that they and their spouse will not benefit from said earmark. This brings full transparency to the system - anyone with worries merely has to log online to find out what the earmark is about. "We do not claim that all earmarks are wise uses of government dollars, nor do we assert that the earmark process is completely free of corruption. However, on balance we believe that the current earmark process plays a useful role in the American system of government and is typically more open to public scrutiny than alternative methods of spending taxpayer dollars." [1] Putting earmarks in the hands of the executive branch actually is a bigger problem: Presidents and executive officials can use earmarks to reward friends and to punish enemies. Since the executive is the alternative to Congress using earmarks, my opponent must prove that putting this in the hands of the executive will be safer than keeping it in Congress, which is now a transparent system. C3 Earmarks are a part of the budget Republican Judd Gregg explains: "Congress has every right to prioritize how money is spent as the executive branch does. If not, then you turn over a huge authority to embedded bureaucrats in the executive branch." [2] Without earmarks, this responsibility would fall on the executive branch. My opponent must show us that in a world without earmarks, the executive would be able to properly allocate funds towards the programs that earmarks protect. Allowing the use of earmarks ensures that Congressmen - who know their constituents and their needs best - can secure the necessary funding to satisfy the needs of their constituents. ---- Refutations ++my opponent's arguments++ ++Every year, money and power is being processed through a system without any transparency nor accountability.++ As I explained above, earmark reforms have forced legislators post requests on their websites and must sign certification letters indicating that they (and their spouse) will not financially benefit from the earmark. Earmarks are transparent. ++Congressional earmarks are items that direct funds to certain projects without any speculation from the government nor opinion from the public.++ Representatives fund programs which are in the interest of their constituents. They do so in order to secure votes - obviously, there is "opinion" and approval from the public. I'm not sure what my opponent means by "speculation from the government". If he is referring to transparency, I have already responded. ++In the past, we have seen it lead to many instances of wasteful spending and it has become another way for corruption to occur in United States politics.++ My opponent must provide examples in order for the debate to ensue. Remember that a system without earmarks would be a system where all this responsibility falls on the executive branch to allocate funding to programs. There is no indication the the executive will better allocate funds than Congress itself. Until my opponent provides examples, we cannot consider this contention in the round. And now, I eagerly await my opponent's contentions and responses. I would also like to add one rule: YouTube videos may not be used as a part of this debate; they can be used as a source if the information is contextualized. ---- [1] http://www.pbs.org... [2] http://www.unionleader.com...