4 ms·
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 "
by 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 agoThat'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.