Eliminating Earmarks Would Be Disastrous

November 17, 2010


Comments

2 Responses to “Eliminating Earmarks Would Be Disastrous”

  1. Old Man Dotes on November 17th, 2010 1:22 pm

    For once, I disagree. Eliminating earmarks means that spending bills will have to pass on their own merits, or not at all. It’s long past time that our lawmakers are forced to either come out of the shadows to champion their pork-barrel projects, or just stop asking the USA to fund a new roof for their favorite bait shop in Podunk, Alabama.

  2. hsr0601 on November 17th, 2010 1:35 pm

    The SHAMELESS reps’ principal : No principal & power-only !
     
    1. Anti-DISCLOSE Act VS. Pro-Earmark Ban

    It is apparent that the largest form of wasteful spending can arise from the Shadowy Campaign Money offered by the greedy interest group.
    And Earmarks accounted for about $16 billion, less than 1 percent, of federal spending in 2010, small potatoes in contrast to Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.
     
    2. The reps & jobs
     
    a. Even when the economy was on the cusp of entire collapse just like Lehman Brothers ahead of the roll-out of stimulus package, it was held hostage by Audacity of Nope, and the time was running out.
    Power first said : Nope ! How do we pay for it ?, Just let him go under exactly like Lehman Brothers.
     
    b. It is also important to remember a small business bill that was blocked for weeks by a republican filibuster in the Senate.
     
    c. Power first now says without hesitation : Extend the tax cuts for the greedy until we’re out of this recession, or for the job creation.
    Under the failed Bush tax cut for lavish bonus parties, a sole job plan for the reps, the country already saw millions of job cuts.
    And hence it’s the right time to ask themselves as to how they can pay for it.
     
    d. Jobs ahead in another Bush era ( = Entire Downfall ) ??
    I think D.S. is going to realize vividly how Bush era wrecked economy.
     
    3. The reps campaigned on their ability to cut spending and balance the budget, so they should be required to make good on that pledge.
     
    But, the Bush tax cut for the greedy will add an additional $700 billion to the deficit over a decade.
    As for the Democrats, sound investments = deficit hike.
    As for the reps, failed giveaway policy = job creation.
     
    4. Over the duration of healthcare debate, using the preliminary cost analysis of CBO, the reps opposed the public option stubbornly, but after the release of final score, they have been defiant on the referee.
     
    Inaction cost in relation to health care reform totals $9trillion over the next decade.
    The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that reform will reduce the federal deficit by $143 billion over the next 10 years and as much as $1 trillion during the following decade
     
    5. In view of Medicare & Social Security :
     
    “Don’t Let Government Touch Your Medicare & Social Security”
    “We will instead Stomp On Your Medicare & Social Security”

Got something to say? **Please Note** - Comments may be edited for clarity or obscenity, and all comments are published at the discretion of ChattahBox.com - Comments are the opinions of the individuals leaving them, and not of ChattahBox.com or its partners. - Please do not spam or submit comments that use copyright materials, hearsay or are based on reports where the supposed fact or quote is not a matter of public knowledge are also not permitted.