I didn't know David Gregory had it in him. Good for David.

Graham spend his spending proposals had merit,

Graham said his spending proposals had merit,

all of this just reinforces are unpersuasive

all of this just reinforces how unpersuasive

It sounds like Graham is basically saying: "If it's for my state, it's defensible public spending. If it's for your state, it's earmarks." ???

What was most interesting about the Meet The Press segment in my opinion was Chuck Schumer explaining some of the reforms that have already taken place like every earmark having someone's name on it and all of them being published on the web for people to see. That to me is the part that NOBODY has talked about so far and that is there have already been reforms put forth in the process which is precisely why we know all about these earmarks now and who put them in whereas in years past people snuck them in the bill at the last minute and nobody knew who did it for sure.

One man's earmark is another man's infrastructure project.
I think what Graham really wants is the opportunity to filibuster everyone else's projects. This would be a big aid to the GOP in their perpetual effort to hamstring government until it becomes as dysfunctional as they promise.

"Graham calls for earmark reform," makes a great soundbite. What sort of reform, Senator? What are the details? Republicans are good at soundbites, poor at detail.

Anyone who has an earmark in that bill needs to STFU. The nerve, the audacity

Graham could easily give up his earmarks and let the Obama administration determine how to spend the money.

But that would be a bad idea because some money should be targeted by people most familiar with local issues that need funding.

SB - Thanks for this post on earmarks. I used to have a knee jerk reation to the term as well. An assumption that, of course they are wasteful. But, truth is, most of the earmarks I checked out seemed to be very smart uses of goverment money. The more the public knows about these projects, the more McCain and his boyfriend will embarrass themselves in trotting out this nonsense.

For another, they're willing to tolerate justifiable earmarks without realizing that even the earmarks that sound wasteful turn out to be entirely reasonable.
================

I'm fairly certain that Graham is perfectly clear on this concept. The Republicans realize it, but they have a reasonable belief that their base won't, and they're also hoping that people like you will think they just made a sincere error.

One earmark I would to see, which would not stimulate the economy, would be money given to a posse to ride into KBR land and string their officials to the nearest lampposts. Members and former members of the Indiana and Oregon National Guard are becoming ill and, some have died, of cancerous effects of being exposed to hexavalent chromium while guarding water treatment facilities being restored by Halliburton KBR in Iraq. The soldiers were neither told of the hazard nor protected by KBR, who now has denied any liability.

Should be labeled the "Hang 'Em High" Earmark, sponsored by Rep Greg Walden (R) OR and Rep Mike Pence (R) IN - Unfortunately, this will only happen "When Republicans Fly".

"Any chance Graham, McCain, et al, might consider this reality before engaging in more shameless demagoguery?"

Hell no - shameless demagoguery is all that the rethugs have left!

Wow, someone in the press actually brought up a constitutional argument. I'll have to sit down now and put my head between my legs.

I don't know if the Repub congresscritters have figured it out, but eliminating anything resembling an earmark means you've just handed over a lot of discretionary power to the executive branch. That was OK with them when the shrub was in power, but they may have noticed some changes in the last few months. I guess they're just using McCain's hobby horse to fire off a few cheap shots, which is all they're good for these days.

Let's conjugate:
-I support valuable projects for my constituents.
-You request earmarks.
-He steals your tax dollars to study fish screwing.

John R. wrote:

Anyone who has an earmark in that bill needs to STFU. The nerve, the audacity

I'd like to add that I think that anyone who has an earmark in a bill, and then votes against that bill expecting it to pass due to majority votes, loses their earmark. If you want money going back to your state/district, fine, but you have to own it.

Graham spend his spending proposals had merit, and were therefore worthwhile: "I think I should have the ability as a United States senator to direct money back to my state as long as it's transparent and it makes sense."

If Graham should have this ability, shouldn't all the other 99 US Senators? And if so, then what in the hell is he complaining about?

It's morally possible to do something you find objectionable if other people are doing it. Why should Graham give up his earmarks if no one else in the Senate wants to do it either?

I find the mortgage tax deduction to be stupid. I wish it didn't exist. But once I have a mortgage I plan on taking advantage of it.

HYPOCRISY IS INTELLECTUAL HONESTY.

The process of re-euphemization continues - "earmarks" is essentially the current word for "log-rolling" which has always gone on. It's a bad way to spend money, but probably the main problem is that it gives an advantage to incumbents in elections. Politicians are judged by voters on their record of bringing home the bacon as much as anything.

As Joe W. above notes, one man's earmark is another man's infrastructure project.

The demonization of earmarks is bizarre, they really aren't that important to the overall size of the budget.

In fact, I propose that the second stimulus bill that we all know is necessary should be all earmarks, allocated in proportion to congressional district population. Each rep would put their name on their projects. It would be easy to pass, it would stimulate the economy, and each House member would be required to justify projects in their own district.

By the way, I give Graham credit for admitting that banks might need to be nationalized. He's a lot more reasonable than most of his GOP colleagues.

What pisses me off most is that the tiny earmarks are obviously the least important budget-wise, but probably are the kind of projects which are hard to defend outside of a home district.

The big earmarks are the real sickness: defense spending. For instance, a $2.5 billion dollar destroyer that nobody wants, or more F-22s that we don't need. Think about how many tattoos we could remove ($200k/program) with $2.5 billion. How many $2 million dollar planetarium projectors could we buy for that amount? 1250!

Why not a limit on the size and number earmarks, and some requirement that they at least have the support of local officials. Defense appropriations seem the most ripe for abuse due to the shear size of the projects and the fact that the public cannot use the end results. They obviously stimulate the economy, but there is no additional benefit, especially when the military doesn't want a particular item.

Itiail: "It's morally possible to do something you find objectionable if other people are doing it."

...

"HYPOCRISY IS INTELLECTUAL HONESTY."

Do you really want to start down *that* slippery slope? Your argument reduces to, "It's OK to do something bad as long as everyone else is doing it too." And that, in turn, reduces to, "I was only following orders (of the mob/society/collective/etc.)." The Nuremberg Trials did away with that excuse more than 60 years ago.

If you know/believe/claim that something is bad, and yet you do it anyway, then yes, you are a hypocrite. And there is nothing honest, intellectually or otherwise, about that.

The problem is not the earmarks themselves; not what they are, what they do, the amount they cost or the percent of the overall spending that they represent.

The problem is that they represent money allocated by one congressperson, and as such are an invitation to linkage to "campaign contributions" and corruption. Whether that linkage exists or not, and all too often it does, the appearance of it tarnishes the perception of government.

Repugs are using "earmarks" to dog-whistle their constituents. Just like Obama being a "Community Organizer", the titles of some earmarks Screams to some as wasteful, and for worthless(?) constituencies.

$200,000 for tattoo removal. This screams to the Repugs that are left as "we" are paying to have young punk's tattoos removed or that gang bangers can get free tattoo removal.

Now that most Repug strongholds are in small towns and the South, this screams $200,000 waste. However, when I first heard of the "earmark", and I live in the Los Angeles area, I knew right away what is was for, and my impression was Positive.

To get former bangers back into society, their tattoos are a very visible picure of their past.
and makes re-entry into the work force harder. This program is intended to get ex-bangers back to work, which helps people to change and survive in a different enviroment than the one they are leaving.

Tattoo removal helps people to get work and become a productive member of sosiety, and not the liability to society he was as a gang banger.

Excellent point, Blue Shoe.

I think there's a case to be made that one should completely eliminate earmarking as a mechanism, because it bypasses anything like peer review. Maybe all of these projects should go through a review process. Maybe John McCain can propose something, rally support for it, and, you know, change the law.

But I don't think sitting members of Congress would like that "reform" very much.