Is pork-barrel politics good legislating or wasteful spending? John McCain has made a career out of rejecting all pork; Harry Reid is a staunch defender of the practice. Read the article below and give me your take.
Nothing wrong with a little pork
Earmarks at first glance appear to be unfair and a form of bribery, and as I initially skimmed the article I was against the idea of restoring this practice. However, as I continued to read it seemed as if this pork barrel spending was fairly helpful as it could cause legislators to throw support behind a useful or necessary piece of legislation. While it may appear unfair, I feel like pork barrel spending would only help ease the tensions in Congress and lessen the conflict in Washington. Edwin p. 3
ReplyDeletePersonally i agree with this article, to some extent. I agree with this when he explains that the legislators ear mark when they realize that there are demands from there constituents to fix a problem or they need money to better the district. Overall we benefit from this pork. We are the ones who get to benefit of the new roads, parks, libraries,medical research, defense technology, etc. But i disagree when a legislator begins to take advantage of it and start steering over excessive amounts of money.
ReplyDelete-Natali Alvarado
Period 2
I agree with both sides of the argument. I don't think that pork barrel spending is the best way to fix things and gain support in congress but it is somewhat necessary if that is the only way to get support for something that can be beneficial to the people. There are bad points to it like legislators taking advantage to earmarks but overall i feel like if it were to benefit us more than hurt us then it should be allowed.
ReplyDeleteCrystal Kim
Per. 3
I agree with the article because I believe we can gain advantages from the pork barrel as much as the Congress does. Sure, the Congress can use it and may seem like bribery to us, but I think it's okay to be "bribing" if they can establish parks, libraries, etc for us that we can afford without the city budget. Especially, with this earmarks, we can lower down the unemployment rate by creating jobs.
ReplyDeleteStacy Jeon Per 2
I agree with the argument that pork barrel spending is a good thing. I feel that some projects that are funded through pork are actually beneficial to the people. For example, the highway by Victoria Gardens is an example of a project funded through pork. This highway has improved the movement of goods, and has promoted economic development because it increases access to distribution sites throughout the Inland Empire. I do, however, feel that some projects are a waste of money. I do not think it is fair when Members of Congress use our tax dollars to fund projects that do not benefit the overall population.
ReplyDeleteAlexis Garcia p.3
I personally feel that "earmark" spending is beneficial for the people in their specified districts and for the members in the House and the Senate. Not only will people in certain districts have an advantage to use the money, for example, in order to promote more job openings or to fund more medical research, but the House and Senate members in Congress will also gain an advantage in that they will have a higher chance of being reelected year after year due to their incessant efforts to help their local districts. Though many people think that it is a "cheap" strategy to get reelected into Congress, I personally do not think so because it is a win-win situation for the people in the districts and for the House and Senate members. The latters sincerely care for their people "back home".
ReplyDeleteSiddharth Sai P.3
I agree with this article that earmarks and pork barrel spending are important and that they do benefit a lot of people in the districts that receive the earmarks. I understand that these earmarks can be seen as bribery or corrupt but I would hope members of congress want to use earmarks to help the constituents who elected them to represent their district and not to make fast cash. There were even examples of how earmarks were used to help get important legislations get passed which is also a benefit to our country because we were able to get the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed and Arizona received money for one of their plans. Also, the money received from earmarks goes back to the community, armed forces, schools and universities. I see more benefits to bringing back the earmarks to maybe getting legislation passed and also bringing money back into districts that need money to get important initiatives started that would help their communities.
ReplyDeleteMaddie Van Balen
P. 3
Pork-barrel spending is a good way for states and districts to get well needed fund. However, it is also a way for Congressman to gain favor from districts for re-election. People from one state will be paying for bridges and parks that another state does not even need. And even if the bridge was needed, it is unfair to make people from a state across the country to pay for it. It may benefit each state, but if the states want to keep federalism in place, then they need to learn to raise money on their own.
ReplyDeleteSarah McNair
DeletePeriod 2
I don't agree with Senator Reid because I don't believe his reasoning for defending "Pork Barrel" spending. I understand this spending helps many of our state's districts but I don't believe that keeping this type of spending will prevent members of our congress from legislating for themselves rather than for their districts. Earmarking would only help our congress men and women hide their true plans as members of congress behind the excuse that they will help our districts. I would rather have honest politicians representing and making fair legislation than politicians who have their own political agenda and use spending such as earmarking to keep themselves in office. That being said, I only agree with keeping earmarking unbanned if the politicians advocating it truly want what is best for the people of their districts.
ReplyDeleteTalin Miller
Period 3
Pork Barrel spending is a good thing. Congressmen use pork barrel spending to build projects to benefit the constituents of their districts. This in turn helps them get reelected as the constituents of his/her district would be happy with the congressmen. Every congressmen usually wants to get reelected so it's likely most of the congressmen are using pork barrel money to help their constituents and in turn help themselves. This may seem wrong but in reality the people all benefit because all the congressmen want to get pork barrel money and most do get at least some so all across America constituents are being benefited. Their can be some issues in the fairness of the amount of money distributed because naturally some congressmen are going to be better at getting pork barrel money so a state like Hawaii can get more pork per person than a state like California. I don't see this as an issue because due to the competitive nature of politics congressmen are going to try to get the most amount of pork to give to their district to keep getting reelected and the congressmen who are the best will stay longer and the ones who aren't good will eventually get replaced by someone better; in this situation the constituents benefit since now they will get more money for more projects to benefit the people more. I am all for Pork Barrel spending as it benefits the people more and corruption seems to be like some people of a certain district get more money for projects but in the end everyone gets money it would be impossible to divide the money freely. Hence why people should vote in the congressmen that can get them more pork. This seems like an issue people want to point fingers at just to say the national government is corrupt when it's a benefit to them.
ReplyDeleteAlexander Pinon Per. 2
I believe that pork barrel spending can be a very good thing. When used the right way and not in a wasteful way, it can bebfit alot of people. From building highways to structures of more recreational use, it can help the district out. I do however feel that the spending can be used is a wasteful way, and can be used as a cheap or easy way for re-election. Pork barrel spending should not be used as a way of getting what a congressman want or the sole reason for their re-election. But if pork is used in moderation and in a right way, there is nothing wrong with it.
ReplyDeleteIbukun Akinbohun Per. 3
I agree with the author of the article. I do not believe ear making is a form of bribery or that it's an unfair way to gain support from constituents. Earmarking is beneficial to many individuals in a community. Congressmen use this power in order to help their constituents by obtaining funds to create roads, parks and other necessary things in a community. As the article states, what the Congressmen utilize this money for will create new jobs and more opportunity for their constituents. I understand how this can be seen as bribery, however I do not believe that is its purpose. Historically, earmarking has ultimately benefited this nation and we should not ban it.
ReplyDeleteKristina Munoz per. 2
I agree with the author of this article, and I believe that earmarked spending can have many beneficial effects. Earmarks can greatly benefit a significant number of individuals within these Congressmen's districts, and overall, earmarking has been used for good rather than for bad purposes. Although earmarking can easily be seen as a form of bribery that serves to corrupt our political system, I believe that its benefits far outweigh its disadvantages, and, as a result, I believe that earmarking should not be banned in the U.S.
ReplyDeleteJulia Spaczai P. 3
I think that pork barrel-ing is a good thing! It is advantageous to the community that the money is spent on. I think that it's beneficial if it is used on things like cultural centers, parks, museums, or libraries! But, there should be some sort of limit because it wouldn't be fair for one district/city to get a ton of money from other stat's tax payer money. I agree with Sarah, they need to learn how to raise & manage money on their own!
ReplyDeleteArby Dy
Period 2
Although i agree for the allowance of earmarks, I do disagree with the process of it as well as the inequality of money distributed to each district. It should not be in fine print under a bill, but rather its own separate bill. In addition, Congressmen should not rely on pork-barreling in order to get re-elected, but rather they should fund the projects through their own state's budget. I strongly believe most Americans would rather keep their tax dollars in their own state rather than another one. Earmarks are a great use of federal money to benefit districts, but it does need to be reformed in order to improve the system.
ReplyDelete-Shania P.2
I don't think earmarking money for certain projects is a bad idea. If the congress people are putting it to it's correct use whether it gives them publicity or not does help give back to the city. How would we have parks and pools? I can see where some might argue that its bad idea because it's taxpayer money but how else do we get stuff. Everything is a business and i don't think people realize that. The part I disagree with is how it is distributed, some states get more than others even if they have less people? Maybe that is something that they could work on. P.3
ReplyDeleteI completely understand where Mr. Reid is coming from, but I would have to disagree with his argument. Although, pork-barreling could be a very helpful tool getting propositions, laws, etc. pass during conflicts for it motivates people to support a proposal that they normally wouldn't. This would help legislatures in the short-run however, long term wise this would become a problem. Most likely, pork-barreling would become a common tool congress or executive can use which would result in congressmen becoming dependent on pork-barreling and only would agree with terms as long as they receive something in return because they know they can get away with it. And it would be little too naïve to think that the every congressman etc. would not take advantage of pork-barreling or find some loop hole in the restrictions that they might place on pork-barreling, so might as well, end it before Washington actually becomes a “mess”.
ReplyDeleteJada B P.2
After reading the article "pork barrel spending" sounds like a good thing as long as it is used for the right purposes. If "pork barrel spending" is used for paving roads, improving national defense, and for increased opportunities for a higher education, then I am all for it. It is when "pork barrel spending" is used with the selfish intent of getting reelected, then I have a problem. Earmarks shouldn't be used as a tool in the effort to persuade legislators to vote against their interests or their traditional position. Earmarks can do a lot of good and can also do a lot of bad, I am in favor of using earmarks as long as it is for the right reasons.
ReplyDeleteTyler Clausen Period 2
You might also want to check out the Citizens Against Government Waste website (cagw.org). This may persuade many of you to combat pork rather than support it. The site tends to dispute the thesis of the article that pork is used for benign and beneficial purposes.
ReplyDeleteI think that earmarks have a positive and negative affect on the states. The pro of earmarks is that constituents get want they desire. It does help save some money for the states and most of the money that earmarks provide for goes to constructing new buildings for that district. The cons of having earmarks is that it causes an unequal chance for new challengers to get elected for district. It also hides the fact that the money they take comes from tax payer money. for example a new park in Idaho is being built with earmarks money, but what they don't show is that people from another state are paying for that park with taxes. Everybody enjoys free money and not spending money and that why some states agree with earmarks, but there should be a limit where congress is only allowed to take a certain amount of money at a certain time. i believe that if congress is just afraid of not getting reelected then they should work hard enough to actually earn there reelection and try not to bribe the people.
ReplyDeleteI see boths sides of this arguement because not only can pork barrel spending help politicians keep their jobs by bringing back money to their constituents, but its also done in a manner where there are no strings attached. Looking at this in an economic perspective, the increased government spending would help an area come out of recession. However just as there are pros for this, there are cons. It can cause a large amount of taxpayer money to be used in ineffetive, uneconomical ways. It would increase the rate of inflation which in turn would have a negative affect on the economy as a whole
ReplyDelete-Anju
p2
I agree with the authors statement that pork barrel spending isn't so bad. Although the process of obtaining the funds may seem to work based on bribery, is that really such a bad thing??? After all the people are getting what they want and isn't that all anyone cares about?? (rhetorical question). I don't think people are very concerned with where the money is coming from, nor do I think they should be, because regardless, they still get what they want. New roads, parks and ect. to help in the reelection of congressman seems reasonable, because if he/she is responsive to the peoples demands then perhaps that demonstrates how dedicated they are to their district. So despite what seems unfair or unequal on the political field, doesn't seems to affect the people negatively what so ever.
ReplyDeletemolly per.2
I feel that pork barrel spending is a something that doesn't need to be banned or gotten rid of. But they should instead be able to be used for all of the state, and not just a district of a representative. I feel that since the budget for pork barrel spending comes from all tax payer dollars, then all tax payers in a state should be able to receive the benefits that they are funding. If representatives are able to find a way that the entire state can benefit from the money given to them then pork barreling could become a great idea and a useful one. But if only certain districts are able to gain the benefits then i feel that pork barreling should be restricted.
ReplyDeleteJoseph Nunez P:2
This topic was very hard to decide a side to be on. I see the argument that earmarking spending has had on the country nationwide: usually funding goes towards education, social issues, recreational sights, and local needs. I can point to the direct ways in which Congress is then listening and acting on behalf of its constituent, and that is the biggest bonus of pork barrel spending. But I also have discomfort about the means at which Congress can slip things into bills and legislature to benefit their specific district. Possibly a limit on district funds, and earmarking could resolve the unknown and mystery of earmarking.
ReplyDeleteMonica Juarez
Period 3
Okay so I agree with some of what Edwin said to a point when he mentioned that as he was at first turned off from pork as a unfair and sneaky way to give money to some states. However, as I kept reading I say how useful pork has been in the past in allowing Congress to get things done. Like Mr. Cavanaugh said I don't think Congressman should maybe take as much credit as they do. I believe that if pork is going to continue it should have restrictions on exactly on what types of things that pork money should be spent on so that it is not spent ludicrously and wastefully. Although I think it is very sad to see that Congressman will not do everything in their power to do their job correctly without the lear of money.
ReplyDeleteNonye Ikeanyi
Per. 3
I saw*
Deletelure* of money
sorry for the typos
I've read through the article twice now and I seem to feel conflicted towards earmarks. I understand it being of use on the terms of driving legislators to back up important pieces of legislation and possibly aid in relieving the stress between members of Congress, it could also lead to harm due to bribery being brought into practise as a commonground threat.
ReplyDeleteJess West, period 3
Earmarks are not as negative as this article made it to be. In fact, pork-barrel spending seems to be beneficial towards the districts in which the incumbent tries to be reelected in. The communities receive what they wish for, and the congressman remains in office. If the congressman gives his district what they desire, doesn't that allude him to be a "good politician?" The pork money is used to please the communities in areas that their state government or federal government do no satisfy them in, and also creates a better opinion of the legislative branch.
ReplyDeletePamela Santos
P. 3
I agree with Julian Zelizar about how earmarks can prove to be helpful, not hurtful to constituents in different districts. Although many people may think that the legislators are unfairly taking federal money to benefit their own districts, the purpose of this money IS for their respective constituents so the legislators should be able to use this money to fund projects. Also, especially if this money can be used to put in place laws and acts that will benefit the people (such as the New Deal), then it is crucial to allow earmarks to take place in this nation. At first, I did not favor the idea of my parents' tax payer money being funded for projects in other districts, but now that I see it from a different perspective, I can see that earmarking can prove to be beneficial and help provide physical improvements in this district that would benefit the country in the long run.
ReplyDeleteJenny Hong P.3
I agree with this article that earmarks are truly an important tool for a congressman and is ultimately beneficial for a district. Earmarking is used to gain the support of individuals within a district but the funds are used for good purposes that help the people. If the purpose of earmarking is to gain support by helping the living conditions and provide opportunities for the individuals in the district, then the benefits far outweigh the possibility that earmarking can be considered bribing. It is written in the article that the funds provided through earmarking have "funded hundreds of job training programs paved roads... supported the police officers... etc". Therefore, i believe that earmarking should not be banned in the U.C.
ReplyDeleteAndrew Kim P.3
U.S. *
DeleteI must say, Mr. Reid has a lot of trust in his government. Although I see Mr. Reid’s point in terms of pork barreling, I must disagree with his argument. Although, pork-barreling gets propositions, laws, etc., pork barreling is very susceptible to abuse, and fraud. Thankfully, our government has a very efficient checks and balances. However, if the government check and balance system becomes ineffective then pork barrel can be abused by dishonest politicians. I fear that pork barrels are potential tears in our U.S. government and could definitely hurt our economy and the trust between tax payers and government. My distrust of the pork barrel is probably due to the major pork barrel scandal in the Philippines and one that happened in Japan a few years back. I honestly do not trust the government enough to take that large amount of money without some way to siphon some profit.
ReplyDeleteBenedict Mamaril
P3
I dislike these blogs put me in. I am always on the fence on most of these articles. In this case, I support pork spending because it allows people's hard earned tax dollars to be spent on well needed community projects such as highways and sports stadiums. This not only increases publicity for the particular district but also it provides jobs. But on the other hand, the congressmen/congresswomen get free publicity that can help them for reelection, causing an unfair election. Another downside to pork barrel spending is that the tax dollars doesn't always get distributed evenly, causing some districts to be left with nothing. Based off of these findings, I can't say I fully support or object to pork spending. I see the good it can do, but I can also see how it can be portrayed as a crime.
ReplyDeleteSunny Puppali
Per. 3
This article is simply wrong, there is no other way about it. It tries to turn effects that are negatives into positives with a little magic in its wording, but in my opinion fails to make a valid argument.
ReplyDeleteThe first point the article makes is that, without pork barrel spending, certain bills would not have passed because they stood against the opinions of congressmen who, with pork barrel spending, were persuaded to vote the opposite direction. But that is a negative, you want your congressmen to have more integrity than that. You want your congressmen to vote on their beliefs, you largely or entirely elected them because their opinions matched yours and that a staple of democracy. Going around that undermines the idea that a congressman represents his people.
The second point the article makes is that the spending is used for positives like road-building, libraries and parks. But why does there need to be pork-barrel spending for this to occur? Indeed, all pork barrel spending actually does here is spread the government's wealth unfairly, favoring some districts over others, which again is an absolute negative for a democratic country.
I think pork barrels should stay banned. I don't see any reasonable arguments for reinstating what is an undeniably undemocratic process.
Derek Croxford, p.2
I can't say I'm completely for earmarks. something about them is just... dirty. I mean of course they may be used to have a new bridge in some district or whatever. But do we now if the congressman is doing it for the benefit of their district's people, or doing it to support the campaign come reelection time. We can never know the intent of earmarks and that's what makes me skeptical. "But even if it is for their own personal gain, it's still helping their district", yeah but the only way you do a truly good thing is when you do it because it's a good thing. Plus there's always the fact that in the end, a tax payer in name-a-state is paying for this in Illinois, that in Ohio, this in Wisconsin, that in Georgia. they just feel kinda dirty... at least to me.
ReplyDeleteMichael M.
pd.3
Like Edwin said, pork-barrel spending sounds negative and could be unfair to other states who do not get as much, but if used correctly, this pork money could benefit many people. Of course it benefits the Congressman because he is able to get money for his district and keep his name popular and in good standings. Also, it benefits the people because we get new roads, highways, parks etc.. Even if, for example, California tax dollars are being spent in another state, it is still benefiting the country as a whole, and California also receives money from other state's tax dollars. If this pork is used correctly and isn't taken advantage of, this could benefit the country and the Congressmen.
ReplyDeleteAubrie Jones p.2
There are many pros and cons to earmarking but I believe that it should not be completely banned, but possibly regulated. Earmarking could be used wickedly, or it could be used to create necessary change such as the case with Andrew Johnson. Also much good has come from earmarking such as research on diseases. I believe possibly there should be limits on what could be labeled as allowed in earmarking and also that there should be a cap on earkmark spending since it is much higher then it should be.
ReplyDeleteAhmed P 2
The author of this article seemed to look at the "brightside" of the Congressmen by stating that the money was only used for constructions that are beneficial to the people of that district. Yet, a majority of Congressman are more focused on being reelected than on the opinion of his or her district. Why else would a Congressman attach their name to the freeway, park, etc that the pork barrels purchased?? It does not make any logical sense as to why a taxpayer's money in Maine is paying for a park in California. There is not an equal distribution of money so pork barrels should be banned.
ReplyDeleteMeagan Mandala
Period 2
I agree with the author of this article that earmark spending is a very beneficial tool for our country, as long as it is used for the right, ethical reasons. Earmarking is used by Congressmen to help their constituents by gaining money and spending it on projects that, overall, benefit their district. These benefits usually include the creation of things like new roads and parks. I can understand how this can be seen as a method of bribery, but I do not believe that this is what our Congressmen are using it for. I believe that the benefits of earmarking far outweigh its disadvantages and should not be banned from the United States.
ReplyDeleteSamantha Leyesa
Period 2
Personally I agree with this article . I do believe that earmarking is a positive thing and it should not be banned. If our tax money is being put to good use for other districts to benefit from. But I agree there are cons. They could be if our tax money was being spent for useless things. Instead of banning of earmarking, I agree with Ahmed, instead we should regulate it.
ReplyDeleteAlex Rodriguez p. 2
Earmarking is a very controversial issue because there are, like Ahmed said, many pros and cons. Personally, I am all for earmarking. Yes, congressmen have the ability to abuse this power to feed their own benefits, but in the end, no matter what kind of projects the federal tax was put into, that particular community now has a new library or school. Of course, without restrictions, this system could potentially lead to chaos. With proper restrictions, I believe earmarking does more good than harm. Perhaps limiting the number of projects in a year could be a possible limitation that would result in excessively expensive, federal money-draining projects. Overall, I believe that with a proper plan to restrict earmarks, our government will strive to match the public's interests.
ReplyDeleteTabitha Kim, period 3
Like many have said I see the pros and cons of pork. Obviously if you are an incumbent congressman it is easier to win a reelection by utilizing pork to construct projects in your district that benefit your constituents, which creates a negative connotation of pork only being used to boost one's incumbency reputation. Also if you are a member of the few states' districts that obtain an immense allowance of pork you benefit because your taxpayer dollars are coming back to you indirectly in sometimes necessary district projects. In contrast let's say that instead of being a district that receives a ton of pork you receive a very minute amount leaving you with the impression that your hard earned tax money is being wasted on some other district instead of yours. I think that pork-barrel politics, in theory, is good legislation however sometimes congressmen do not always play by the rules and use pork for he wrong reason.
ReplyDeleteKristian-Frankie Ripley
P. 3
After reading the article and learning a bit more about earmarking, I seem to disagree with this practice. Mainly, I like some of the outcomes that have resulted from earmarking, but I disagree with the process of obtaining such results. I believe each Congressman should acquire a set amount of funds proportional to their district's population so that every American's tax dollars are returned evenly in the form of district benefits. It is unfair for a nation's citizens, and even non-citizens, to pay individual amounts of taxes to the government and not receive a proportional amount of benefits in return. If each Congressman received such an amount, they would be less eager to compete for funds solely to impress their voters, they could still benefit each of their districts fairly, and they would be less likely to succumb to bribery in the form of passing certain laws solely to acquire funds for their districts. Essentially, I do agree that Congressmen should distribute portions of government funds to their individual districts. However, I believe they should do so fairly and as a specific part of their role as Congressmen instead of a secretive, competetive, and possibly corrupt process.
ReplyDeleteJason Hartogh
Period 3
It is true that earmarks essentially rub many people the wrong way because taxpayers' dollars may be funding another district's projects. However, given the fact that this earmarking accounts for such a small portion taken out of taxes, I believe that the pros outweigh the cons. Reinstating earmarking was compared to opening a bar tab for a recovering alcoholic, but the fact of the matter is that an alcoholic will do something that benefits no one -- a congressman will use earmarking to benefit both himself and his people. Given that since the ban on earmarking it has become significantly more difficult to fund government spending within the districts, I agree with the author's position on re-introducing earmarking, at least to some extent.
ReplyDeleteJulia Jacob
P.3
I do agree with both sides of the argument, there are pros and cons to earmarking. If the congressmen of our district is true to his word and uses the tax money for the benefit of the people such as parks or public projects; however if he/she so happens to pocket or use the money corruptly it the becomes a problem. I believe there should be regulation on earmarking instead of banning it entirely because it does have benefits that outweigh the negatives.
ReplyDeleteDevon Castillo P.3
I agree and disagree with the argument that states that prom barrel is a good thing. Even though this can be extremely beneficial to our district it can also hurt it. The money that comes from it shluld always be used in useful & beneficial projects for the community. As long as they are not used in a way that does not benefit anybody it should continue being used. Since not all the time it will be used beneficially there should be some type of regulation to it so there is no chance of corruption or misuse of it.
ReplyDeleteJunior Camarena p3
I agree with the article, and i think that earmark is a beneficial thing because it will be a win-win situation for citizens and members of House and Senate. For example, when the member of the house and senate use earmark to build highway it will be beneficial to citizen because they got more path to travel to other place and it will be beneficial to members because they will get more votes for election the next time they are appeared on the voting list. young suh per3
ReplyDeleteI can see both the positive and negative outcomes that come with earmarks. The negative side of earmarks is how it could be utilized as a form of bribery for more votes. Also, there is an uneven amount of money being steered to particular states. Essentially, the tax money for Californians could be going towards funding for a park in North Dakota. The positive outcomes of earmarks include its funding of “research and public work programs”. Earmarks have also been helpful in getting some necessary legislation or policy adopted. If earmarks were restored, I believe there should be more regulation and restriction on where that money would be going. There should also be a set limit/amount each Congressman can withdraw to promote equality. This could also alleviate suspicions and criticism on earmarks.
ReplyDeleteJocelyn Vu
per 2
I agree with the author of this article because earmarking is beneficial to citizens residing in their respective districts. Earmarking is a wise use of taxpayer money because the money is pumped backed into the communities from which they draw. In addition, another pro of earmarking is that it paves the way for legislation. Laws that need to be passed will be passed while citizens will benefit from earmarks in the process.
ReplyDeleteMatthew Swart
Period 2
I agree with Devon's point. Earmarking definitely has its good and bad effects, but rather than eliminating it completely there should just be rules and regulations on how much the congressman should receive and what not. I don't think it is fair that some states get a greater abundance of pork than others do. I also realize that some people might be upset that their tax payer dollars could be going to another states funds, but if we look at the big picture here we will realize that sparing some money for other states isn't all that bad when we are treated with new parks, roads, freeways, etc.
ReplyDeleteNicole P.2
I agree with this article to an extent. The article points out the good things pork money has been used for. If legislators were using this to legitimately help the people in their district without thought of reelection, this would be a great thing. However, politicians are more worried about doing whatever they can to win a reelection. If they can make people in their district happy, they are more likely to be reelected. I think that pork money goes into important projects, such as roads, schools, and research, but I think there needs to be more rules than those in place. Tax payer money should be used to benefit that state. No one wants their tax dollars building a library halfway across the country. I think, to lift the ban on pork barreling, some changes need to be made.
ReplyDelete-Jessica Parker p.2
I think I need to see an against pork argument to pick a side. The article argues that pork has been used as a leverage to help passing important laws while benefiting the local districts. I personally dislike the idea that some districts/states are getting more funding than what they paid for tax, while other districts/states are getting less than what they paid for. What if a district is more in need of pork than another but often loses in the pork grabbing competition because it has a less savvy congressman?
ReplyDeleteChristina Chang Period 3
I agree with both sides. Although some negative outcomes of pork barrel spending could be like the legislatures abusing it and causing corruption, the pork barrel spending can benefit districts by providing new parks, libraries, roads, etc. which I don't see a problem with.
ReplyDeleteLisbeth N.
P.3
Although Julian Zelizer provides a good case, I simply cannot agree that earmarks are a good thing. I will follow that statement with the idea that yes, in a perfect world, earmarks would be great, but is that often the case? No. The video of Santorum and Romney debating on earmarks that was attached to the article proved a great point. Politicians will sneak something in at the end of a bill because the president cannot simply veto the earmark but rather he would have to veto the whole bill. You may be asking where the money exactly comes from. Sometimes, states will use other states' money in order to get a project done. Do our tax paying fund really need to go towards a highway in Idaho?? Earmarks need to be banned.
ReplyDeleteArmando Blancas p2
Earmarks seem corrupt and maybe to an extent are, but it can be a very helpful tool. It helps issues and local problems get the right attention to have some sort of legislature passed. They have their cons as to how the money is raised, but the way I see it is that as long as the money is used to actually fund helpful projects then they should be allowed to continue.
ReplyDeleteAzmine Bhuiyan
Period 3
Upon my initial understanding of pork barrel tactics, I was opposed to the use of the practice. However, after reading the article, I came to agree with the author that earmarking is a beneficial practice for the citizens of this country.
ReplyDeleteRather than using government funds for projects that typically don't directly benefit the citizens of a district, earmarking ensures that some of the tax payers' hard earned money goes back to the community. While there could be an argument that earmarking is a form of bribery for more votes, its positive aspects outweigh the negatives. Ultimately, people can be more confident that their government is acting on behalf of the common person through the use of these tactics.
Hermes Pelayo, P. 3
I agree with the author of the article. Earmark spending can have many beneficial effects. I don't think ear marking is a form of bribery. The
ReplyDeleteincreased government spending would help an area come out of recession. It is not an unfair way to gain support from constituents. Earmarking could be very beneficial to many individuals in a community. Congressmen use pork barrel spending to build projects to benefit the constituents of their districts. The money will create new jobs and more opportunity for their constituents. Earmarking has benefited this nation and we should not prohibit it.
Savanna Tafish
Period 2
I have to say that I don't necessarily agree with this "pork barrel" spending but I do realize that is a product of the American system at work. The main reason why I don't care for this is because I don't want my hard earned tax dollars that were taken by my home state of California, to be spent on other American states. I don't mean to sound totally selfish and absurd but I just feel that if I pay money to the federal government in my state, then that money should be used in my state. I guess that's me being unreasonable but it's like me having to pay a tax to the CJUHSD while I attend Rancho but then they go and use it at Los Osos High School. However, we Americans look out for one another though so I guess that I'll allow some if not all of my tax money to go to another place that doesn't benefit or harm me because we should be fair and allow all places to a piece of the pie.
ReplyDeleteMatthew Rivera
Period 2
Though it seemed corrupt initially, I have to say that I agree with the author upon the issue of earmarking. It is one of the few ways that I feel the politics of Washington directly benefits the citizens of the United States. With the practice of earmarking, at the very least, the voters directly get some of their tax money back in the form of reforms or projects that they want to see get done in their communities. In addition, earmarking is a great way to build confidence amongst voters that their government is actually responding to their needs as a whole. Therefore, at the end, I had to say that I too agreed with the practice of earmarking as a whole.
ReplyDeleteNathalie Du
Per. 3
Pork-barrel spending does not benefit us at all...ok it does since those projects are used to better our district but its only to make the one enacting the project look good. Its sad to say that with many against the tactic, its still effective. It may be supposedly banned but there are those who are still influenced by it and support the one behind everything in the end when all it is is just tactical bribing. But despite that, it seems to work for the nation so it must have some merits and can't be that bad I guess
ReplyDeleteRume Diam P.3
I believe that earmarks are an essential part of the system we have carved out for us here in America. Unlike Europe where strong party discipline and loyalty to the party keeps votes even, consistent and predictable, American legislators are more dependent on the vote of their district than support from their party which leads to the system we have now where votes are essentially sold for favors in improving the district. This in my opinion is fine as a congressman's primary duty is to improve their district and self-interest motivates all of us on a daily basis, it shouldn't be condemned just because it's being done by a congressman. If any change is done to the system, I'd recommend making an upper-limit to the more valuable earmarks granted to swing voters in congress.
ReplyDeleteUdit Gupta
Per. 3
Earmarking is a beneficial way to to ensure constituents. I see this task less as a form of bribery but more of a way voters get their benefits in the form of little luxuries ( who wouldnt like new buildings or roads in their districts?). Providing many jobs for constituents. So, hence, earmarking is a durable form of reaching out the the voters with the use of giving back what appeals to the public.. nice new stuff!
ReplyDelete~Lisa R. per.2
After I read the author's point of view in the article, I would say that I am for earmarking. Earmarking is a way for congressmen to help their people via many ways, including making roads, building schools, constructing parks, or creating a new library. As a result, the purpose of earmarking is very beneficial to the people and should be kept. However, I still believe that when earmarking is used by incumbents only to get re-elected into office again, then earmarking is wrong since it is used as a form of bribery.Nevertheless, I think that the positive things we get out of earmarking outweighs the negatives aspects because earmarking, even though it requires tax money, directly helps the people in the US by helping the city they live in. Thus, I believe we should still keep earmarking. - Tarik per 2
ReplyDeleteEarmarks, although very partisan in forcing the many pay for the benefits received by a few, can be beneficial in getting the nation as a whole to acknowledge and respond to issues that are significant to the few. Perhaps instead of getting rid of earmarks completely, each state/district could receive a set amount of earmarks. A little bit of fat is fine for a state/district. It is when that state/district eats up only the fat that it becomes unwell and needs to have its stomach pumped. All metaphorically, of course, the states/districts after extended and excessive use of earmarks can become bothersome and may take advantage of the others so it needs a clean slate to rid itself of its past abuse of the system.
ReplyDeletePaige Hutchings
Period 2
Sorry this is late. I was absent the day this was assigned.
DeleteI was absent, so that is the reason this is sooooo late.
ReplyDelete