Friday, March 20, 2009


What's so wrong with Earmarks? Many people have numerous tattoos or piercings; why can't they have marks on their ears?

After all we are only paying for 8500 earmarks in the $410,000,000,000 omnibus spending bill; how much can 8500 marks on ears for people cost? The big question should be: how do we choose the lucky people to get the marks?

President Obama said after signing the bill that there should be NO MORE Earmarks (even though he said no earmarks during his administration before signing it - this only shows his compassion for the unmarked) ! Isn't that discrimination against the poor people who can not afford to mark their own ears?

Even when there is nothing improper about the actual earmark, it's very difficult for citizens and even other members to be sure. ~ Dennis Thompson

I generally would still not count that as an earmark, even though it has a similar effect, because it is such a gray area of how specific is too specific when setting eligibility criteria. I obviously oppose those provisions, but I would not classify them the same as spending earmarks that actually list the name. ~ Brian Ried

The line-item veto is just one element in earmark reform, and earmark reform is just one element in spending restraint. However, the line-item veto would add an important check to a budget process that is tainted by waste, abuse, and favoritism. Congressional leaders should move quickly on this proposal. ~ Tom Schatz

earmark (n) a mark on the ear of a domesticated animal indicating ownership or identity.
• a characteristic or identifying feature : this car has all the earmarks of a classic.
(v) [ trans. ]1 (usu. be earmarked) designate (something, typically funds or resources) for a particular purpose : the new money will be earmarked for cancer research. 2 mark the ear of (an animal) as a sign of ownership or identity

No comments:

Post a Comment