I know this is just a one line part of your thoughtful post, but it irks me when I read this because it's such a "one move ahead in chess" way of thinking. e.g

I know this is just a one line part of your thoughtful post, but it irks me when I read this because it's such a "one move ahead in chess" way of thinking. e.g. "earmarks" which account for approximately 0% of the budget Great, then completely eliminating pork barrel spending shouldn't hurt anyone. Really, earmarks are bad because they're a corrupting influence that encourages legislators to vote for bills for reasons other than the bills' individual merits. Earmarks are like catalysts in a chemical reaction. They may not appear on the balance sheet for chemicals consumed in a reaction, but without them the reaction wouldn't happen at all or at the same speed. This article turned up in a quick google: http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120705/DEFREG02/307050003/Congressional-Earmark-Ban-Changes-Business-Capitol-Hill http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120705/DEFREG02/3070500... So for being such a small percentage of the budget, earmarks were hugely influential to congress members in getting them to vote. Even though earmarks haven't completely disappeared, their reduction is forcing Congress to rework motivation for getting votes for bills. We need to move beyond the "earmarks is a small percentage of the budget so they don't matter" meme. Think about why and how they're there and you quickly realize that they're bad even if they directly consume 0.00% of the budget.