Quote:
Originally Posted by charlie g
The plain fact is that Paul not putting the earmarks in the bill only hurts his constituents. The change has to come legislatively and it least he is talking the issue. The rules of the game must be changed... it's just going to take more than a few of these guys to get it done. But I have little faith in the collective American attention span. I am sure everyone feels they have done their part by voting and will forget how truly fucked up the system is currently.
|
Exactly right. If money is not earmarked it does not mean that it is not spent. It usually means the executive branch decides where to spend it. Eliminating earmarks would not cut spending even one dollar.