In the clip below The American Prospect’s Mark Schmitt claims that “earmarks have nothing to do with anything” and “you could eliminate all the earmarks and not save a dollar because all they are are streams of existing funding.”
In the clip below The American Prospect’s Mark Schmitt claims that “earmarks have nothing to do with anything” and “you could eliminate all the earmarks and not save a dollar because all they are are streams of existing funding.”
Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.
What did the spending picture look like prior to “94?
Pingback: More on Stevens’ earmarks
Actually what that graph shows is that earmarks and spending are two entirely dissimilar functions related only in amplitude–which makes sense since you're comparing apples to oranges, entitlement spending makes up 80% of all federal spending yet contains no earmarks. Earmarks are essentially noise to that massive signal. Try the same comparison with discretionary spending and earmarks and you may actually find something interesting.
Pingback: FrontBurner » Blog Archive » Why Earmarks Matter
Pingback: FrontBurner » Blog Archive » Hensarling: Don’t Let Airlines Play The Victim Card