Comments on: Earmark reform http://www.lessig.org/2009/03/earmark-reform/ Blog, news, books Mon, 06 Feb 2017 22:13:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.8.2 By: esenyurt evden eve nakliyat http://www.lessig.org/2009/03/earmark-reform/#comment-46563 Sun, 15 Dec 2013 20:47:08 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2009/03/earmark_reform.html#comment-46563 thank you sorry

http://www.evdeneveildenilenakliyat.com/

]]>
By: evden eve nakliyat http://www.lessig.org/2009/03/earmark-reform/#comment-46232 Sun, 18 Aug 2013 22:55:15 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2009/03/earmark_reform.html#comment-46232 allaha inancı olan her vatandaş hastalıktan korunur unutmayın bunu

]]>
By: Make Money Online http://www.lessig.org/2009/03/earmark-reform/#comment-28640 Sun, 03 Mar 2013 18:00:17 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2009/03/earmark_reform.html#comment-28640

]]>
By: Make Money Online http://www.lessig.org/2009/03/earmark-reform/#comment-28638 Sun, 03 Mar 2013 17:56:07 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2009/03/earmark_reform.html#comment-28638 Make Money Online
http://www.worldmarktravel.net

]]>
By: Make Money Online http://www.lessig.org/2009/03/earmark-reform/#comment-28637 Sun, 03 Mar 2013 17:55:17 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2009/03/earmark_reform.html#comment-28637 Surprising to see the non-analytic turn in your approach. Can we have some way to distinguish “bad earmarks” from “good earmarks”? My sense was that “bad” stuff was that inserted into appropriations bill without due legislative consideration in the authorization process — which I have no trouble condemning. But it seems now that ANY local project that has somehow been “touched” by the lobbying process is being tainted and labelled “corrupt”.. “Throwing out the baby with the bath water” approach is just too high a price to pay. A thoughtless reformer is still a thoughtless person — so can we return to the more thoughtful Lessig that most of us admire….

]]>
By: Max http://www.lessig.org/2009/03/earmark-reform/#comment-836 Sat, 21 Mar 2009 02:04:31 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2009/03/earmark_reform.html#comment-836 John commented,”The cancer is a lack of accountability, and there is little accountability in the citizens’ panel approach. Why will citizens’ panels be any more accountable or transparent than K street lobbyists? Why will they make better decisions?”

Regarding “accountability” one group (lobbyists) are compensated and the other is not (a novel approach). Accountability and transparency regarding the panelists depends on you. The Citizen’s Oversight Panel (COP) is in part obligated to police the appropriations requests on your behalf, and you retain the right to review all submissions. Log on to Jackie Speier’s website, download each presentation, and put the time into reviewing them just like COP is doing. You can then express your opinion on the website. If you don’t take the time to do the homework, then you have your answers.

]]>
By: John http://www.lessig.org/2009/03/earmark-reform/#comment-835 Mon, 09 Mar 2009 15:52:35 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2009/03/earmark_reform.html#comment-835

Wouldn’t our time and energy be best spent focusing on reducing spending in these areas?

Mr. Lessig answered that, and I echo it… “But because [earmarks] feed the system of corruption that is the way Washington works. They are the cornerstone of a system feeding the worst of the lobbying mafia…” that’s why we need to kill earmarks as they exist.

I disagree with Mr. Lessig that forming Member appointed ‘citizen panels’ to replace lobbyists will improve the situation. The cancer is a lack of accountability, and there is little accountability in the citizens’ panel approach. Why will citizens’ panels be any more accountable or transparent than K street lobbyists? Why will they make better decisions? Collect globally, spend locally isn’t an especially good recipe for fiscal sanity. It sounds like a recipe for Congressional sinecures in an age of seniority, with long-lived Members bringing home other peoples’ bacon to distribute to pet projects of the Citizens’ Council (which was, after all, appointed by the same Member). If you have a local project, fund it with local funds. If you have a project that needs national support, then you need to put it in competition with all the other national priorities.

]]>
By: Andrew http://www.lessig.org/2009/03/earmark-reform/#comment-834 Thu, 05 Mar 2009 12:24:29 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2009/03/earmark_reform.html#comment-834 Awesome article, and I agree 100%. In the spirit of improvement, I just want to point out one problem with the cancer analogy that may get in the way for an audience well versed in biomedical terminology. Cancers are never benign. Some *tumors* (neoplasms) are benign, some are malignant. The ones that are malignant are commonly referred to as cancers. So the decision about a tumor is basically “is it benign, or is it cancer”. This is definitional. It would, however, be fair to say that some malignant tumors (cancers) are more aggressive than others in either their tendency to grow, or to spread.

]]>
By: Sam Greenfield http://www.lessig.org/2009/03/earmark-reform/#comment-833 Thu, 05 Mar 2009 03:50:58 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2009/03/earmark_reform.html#comment-833 I have to agree with Seth Finkelstein’s comments here.

Quite frankly, I want my elected representation to heed the will of the people who elected them–not to appoint committees to give them advice. And while I understand the link between campaign donations and some earmarks, I’m curious which earmarks you would cut and which you would leave behind. And why.

$7.7 billion dollars in earmarks represents less than 2% of a $410 billion dollar spending bill. The vast majority of the money spent by the federal government is spent on defense, debt service, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget Wouldn’t our time and energy be best spent focusing on reducing spending in these areas?

For example, there are many defense programs that are not classified as earmarks while they appear to have political motivations. Wikipedia reports the development costs of the F-22 to be $65 billion dollars. Do we need this program when we are also developing the Joint Strike Fighter (F-35) for $40 billion?

]]>
By: Mel http://www.lessig.org/2009/03/earmark-reform/#comment-832 Wed, 04 Mar 2009 22:34:19 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2009/03/earmark_reform.html#comment-832 Surprising to see the non-analytic turn in your approach. Can we have some way to distinguish “bad earmarks” from “good earmarks”? My sense was that “bad” stuff was that inserted into appropriations bill without due legislative consideration in the authorization process — which I have no trouble condemning. But it seems now that ANY local project that has somehow been “touched” by the lobbying process is being tainted and labelled “corrupt”.. “Throwing out the baby with the bath water” approach is just too high a price to pay. A thoughtless reformer is still a thoughtless person — so can we return to the more thoughtful Lessig that most of us admire….

]]>
By: Jardinero1 http://www.lessig.org/2009/03/earmark-reform/#comment-831 Wed, 04 Mar 2009 18:25:19 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2009/03/earmark_reform.html#comment-831 I believe that the best way to end earmarks and restore the republic would be to amend the Constitution with the deletion of two clauses: The commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause. With those two strikes, the Congress would become powerless and irrelevant, forever restricted to the puny list in Article 1, Section 8.

I know many readers here would not approve, because they believe there are so many wonderful things a big bloated federal government can do for the people, earmarks not withstanding. To those I say say you still have the fifty states, each unchecked by enumerated powers, each having plenary police power and each a laboratory for progressive, liberal minded government. That’s where you can work your mischief.

]]>
By: Nick http://www.lessig.org/2009/03/earmark-reform/#comment-830 Wed, 04 Mar 2009 15:13:50 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2009/03/earmark_reform.html#comment-830 why have federal spending for local projects? why not return the federal money like dividends to the investing taxpayer and have state/local taxes pay for these projects? do the herald trumpets still blow in retreat for federalism?

]]>
By: Peter http://www.lessig.org/2009/03/earmark-reform/#comment-829 Wed, 04 Mar 2009 13:30:35 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2009/03/earmark_reform.html#comment-829 Awesome arguments. I was sad to see one of my Senators from WA state near the top 10% of requesters. The second paragraph is incredible. This is the kind of dialog we need to hear on the news, not Rush and friends.

]]>
By: Seth Finkelstein http://www.lessig.org/2009/03/earmark-reform/#comment-828 Wed, 04 Mar 2009 11:09:05 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2009/03/earmark_reform.html#comment-828 Which “citizens” get to be on the panel? How do they insulate themselves from conflict-of-interest?

[Joke deleted, because the last time I made a similar joke, it was an enormous negative for me :-( ]

]]>