5 ms·

If you want to fix politics in the US, bring back earmarks. It sounds like I'm advocating corruption, and I kind of am. But at the same time, earmarks served t

If you want to fix politics in the US, bring back earmarks. It sounds like I'm advocating corruption, and I kind of am. But at the same time, earmarks served the purpose of providing a good reason for parties to work together, across the aisle. If a little bit of corruption accomplishes that higher purpose, I'm glad to have it.

ballenarosada 8y ago
why would bipartisanship be good?
- castlecrasher2 8y ago
  Are you saying it's bad?
  - ams6110 8y ago
    If someothing can't be seen as worthwhile by both sides, without payoffs, there's probably a strong argument for not doing it. Gridlock is generally a good thing at the Federal level.
    - kadenshep 8y ago
      Why do these discussions always assume rational or good faith actors, when that so obviously isn't the case?
    - snowwrestler 8y ago
      This is fine as a theoretical construct, but the reality is that a lot of the best features of American government were the result of quid pro quo deal-making. A huge example is the entire Bill of Rights, which was the price of creating a stronger central government. And the movie "Lincoln" illustrates (with only a little exaggeration) the deal-making that went into passing the 13th Amendment. As an aside, I happen to think that there is an important difference between "bipartisan" and "deal-making," and the latter is really where it's at in governance. Earmarks are tools for deal-making. Framing things as "both sides" inappropriately elevates the 2 major political parties as a central feature of our system of government. They're not; in fact the largest political affiliation in the U.S. today is "indepdendent"! And on any serious legislation, there are typically more than two "sides" with an interest in a particular outcome. That's why making deals is so important.
    - ajross 8y ago
      What happens, then, when one "side" takes it as an article of faith that any plan proposed by the other side needs to be rejected out of hand? That's the circumstance we're in right now, and have been since 2008 at least. To wit, Merrick Garland would like a word.
  - ballenarosada 8y ago
    No, just asking why it would be good. The claim was that it's so good that it's worth increased corruption.
michaelbuckbee 8y ago
A slight counterpoint: earmarks are correlated to a time when there were less strict party lines, so you did have people in office who were more moderate politically. How about less gerrymandering? It results in more extreme candidates on both sides (as you get much more "pure" blue/red districts and fewer purple).
- trothamel 8y ago
  I'd argume that's true, but that earmarks are part of the cause of the less strict party lines. "Sure, I might be moderate. But you can be sure that year in and year out, I can bring West Eastport the bacon."
snowwrestler 8y ago
Earmarks are orthogonal to corruption. An earmark simply allocates money to a specific project; a member of Congress who steers money to their district is not "corrupt," he or she is just looking out for the citizens they represent--which BTW is their job. An earmark is only corrupt if it is bought--that is, if a citizen or company bribes the member of Congress to steer an earmark to them. When earmarks were killed, there was actually little evidence that was happening. Earmarks were killed as a talking point about reducing spending. Which is silly, because earmarks allocated funds, they didn't appropriate them. That is, they typically divvied up the pot, not increased its size. It's sort of like the debt limit. Politicians lie to people about things work, in order to attract votes. I don't know if that's corruption so much as cynical opportunism.
- trothamel 8y ago
  That's fair enough. Maybe stupid is a better word than corrupt. The "bridge to nowhere", grants for absurd causes, that kind of thing. They might seem stupid, but if they would allow a fix to Obamacare to pass (say, smoothing out rough edges, rather than a repeal or nothing) then the bridge is just a monument to getting things done.
- TooBrokeToBeg 8y ago
  > Earmarks are orthogonal to corruption. Only in theory. In practice, they are 1:1 - You initiate pork A here, I help you add pork B there. You own pork B company, I own pork A. We both win money, forget the constituents.

ballenarosada 8y ago

why would bipartisanship be good?

castlecrasher2 8y ago
Are you saying it's bad?
- ams6110 8y ago
  If someothing can't be seen as worthwhile by both sides, without payoffs, there's probably a strong argument for not doing it. Gridlock is generally a good thing at the Federal level.
  - kadenshep 8y ago
    Why do these discussions always assume rational or good faith actors, when that so obviously isn't the case?
  - snowwrestler 8y ago
    This is fine as a theoretical construct, but the reality is that a lot of the best features of American government were the result of quid pro quo deal-making. A huge example is the entire Bill of Rights, which was the price of creating a stronger central government. And the movie "Lincoln" illustrates (with only a little exaggeration) the deal-making that went into passing the 13th Amendment. As an aside, I happen to think that there is an important difference between "bipartisan" and "deal-making," and the latter is really where it's at in governance. Earmarks are tools for deal-making. Framing things as "both sides" inappropriately elevates the 2 major political parties as a central feature of our system of government. They're not; in fact the largest political affiliation in the U.S. today is "indepdendent"! And on any serious legislation, there are typically more than two "sides" with an interest in a particular outcome. That's why making deals is so important.
  - ajross 8y ago
    What happens, then, when one "side" takes it as an article of faith that any plan proposed by the other side needs to be rejected out of hand? That's the circumstance we're in right now, and have been since 2008 at least. To wit, Merrick Garland would like a word.
- ballenarosada 8y ago
  No, just asking why it would be good. The claim was that it's so good that it's worth increased corruption.

michaelbuckbee 8y ago

A slight counterpoint: earmarks are correlated to a time when there were less strict party lines, so you did have people in office who were more moderate politically. How about less gerrymandering? It results in more extreme candidates on both sides (as you get much more "pure" blue/red districts and fewer purple).

trothamel 8y ago
I'd argume that's true, but that earmarks are part of the cause of the less strict party lines. "Sure, I might be moderate. But you can be sure that year in and year out, I can bring West Eastport the bacon."

snowwrestler 8y ago

Earmarks are orthogonal to corruption. An earmark simply allocates money to a specific project; a member of Congress who steers money to their district is not "corrupt," he or she is just looking out for the citizens they represent--which BTW is their job. An earmark is only corrupt if it is bought--that is, if a citizen or company bribes the member of Congress to steer an earmark to them. When earmarks were killed, there was actually little evidence that was happening. Earmarks were killed as a talking point about reducing spending. Which is silly, because earmarks allocated funds, they didn't appropriate them. That is, they typically divvied up the pot, not increased its size. It's sort of like the debt limit. Politicians lie to people about things work, in order to attract votes. I don't know if that's corruption so much as cynical opportunism.

trothamel 8y ago
That's fair enough. Maybe stupid is a better word than corrupt. The "bridge to nowhere", grants for absurd causes, that kind of thing. They might seem stupid, but if they would allow a fix to Obamacare to pass (say, smoothing out rough edges, rather than a repeal or nothing) then the bridge is just a monument to getting things done.
TooBrokeToBeg 8y ago
> Earmarks are orthogonal to corruption. Only in theory. In practice, they are 1:1 - You initiate pork A here, I help you add pork B there. You own pork B company, I own pork A. We both win money, forget the constituents.