Earmarks

Earmarks are what the government refer to as “special projects,” true they are not always “pork- barrel spending” of government money, however within them is a lot of ambiguity and many turn out to be very wasteful. President Obama says, “The truth is our earmark system, what's called pork-barrel spending in Washington, is brought with abuse. It badly needs reform.” Framework: The Con proposed that it was my duty to prove that “a world without earmarks, is better than a world with earmarks.” However, the initial debate was about whether earmarks were good or bad. I say that earmarks are bad, but I don't say that by banning them, any problems would be solved. What really needs to happen is a reform. C1.Earmarks need reform. Recently, Obama said “The single greatest tool for getting our fiscal house in order, members of Congress should give up wasteful earmarks.” Some might say that earmarks don't represent much in the federal budget. In reply, he says, ““We can’t afford Bridges to Nowhere like the one that was planned a few years back in Alaska. Earmarks like these represent a relatively small part of overall federal spending. But when it comes to signaling our commitment to fiscal responsibility, addressing them would have an important impact.” From this, he is saying that one of the most important steps to getting out of our f***** up financial state is by controlling earmarks as at the moment they are getting out of hand. C2.Earmarks are corrupted. Some may argue(including Con) that earmarks are transparent and their activity is trackable. True, earmarks are increasing in transparency and that is a good thing. However, look at the number of earmarks being proposed. In 2009, 1000 earmarks were authorized and to for-profit corporations. Con proposed that they are transparent because “congressmen must post all earmark requests on their websites” and that “anybody with worries merely has to log online to find out.” “Anybody” in this statement should refer to all taxpayers of the US as it is their money that is being spent. How do you expect there to be any transparency when literally, thousands of earmarks are being passed by Congress every year. Even if someone “checked up online” and found something they didn't agree with. Who says that it will stop Congress from passing the earmark? Without much transparency, earmarks are subject to backroom wheeling, lobbying and influence-peddling. Some examples of corruption the earmark system are the “Jack Abramoff Indian lobbying scandal” and the “Former NASA Chief of Staff earmark case.” Both resulted in millions of taxpayers' dollars being “stolen” and jail sentences being made. C3.Earmarks are wasteful. There is a never-ending number of wasteful earmarks being passed, even today. For example, $1.2 million was used to fund mosquito traps in Florida. However, nobody requested this Florida. It was congresswomen, Rosa Delauro of Connecticut who asked for this. Dan Inouye asked for $238000 for Hawaiian canoe trips. Is this what the Con refers to as “allocating funds that would normally not receive money?” So some people claim that it's important for funding towards financially insecure schools. Take this for example, half a million dollars worth of earmarks was presented to the “financially-strapped” town of Pawtucket. This money wasn't used to pay of school bills, instead it was used to build a skate park. Enough said. Refutations:(included in contentions) The Con must prove that earmarks are currently good, and require no reform.