- Joined
- Oct 6, 2004
- Messages
- 43,869
- Reaction score
- 15,144
It does make sense when a transparent alternative does not exist. let’s use Trump as an example. If nothing got earmarked and the executive was given full discretion on spending, would you trust the trump administration to spend it wisely or ethically? I’m all for massive reform on this issue, but simply removing earmarking is not a solution, it’ just creates another problem.
Aside from the corruption and ever increasing spending, the issue with eliminating pork barrelling is that it's reinforced by people voting in those that they know will get the spending they want. That's the feedback mechanism. If you remove earmarking you still have to fight corruption and ever increasing spending, but you remove that reinforcement. The second step is to freeze discretionary spending (an Obama proposal I believe). After that you'd address tax breaks.
You can't legitimately claim to be acting against the process you are participating in and refusing to join in the measures to address.
