Yeap, lets demand the Congress to return Their raises and their earmarks along with AIG’s. Their pay should be frozen until America has a balanced budget.
Earmarks are as evil as guns: It depends on how they’re used. Some earmarks are for county hospitals or for airport scanning equipment. Others are for bridges to nowhere. Can you imagine a budget without earmarks? In other words, “I want a $300 billion budget, but I cannot pin down what any of it will be used towards at this time.” Earmarks say: $50,000 for this hospital, $1 million for that airport, etc.
If earmarks are so worthwhile, then why not make each one a separate piece of legislation?
The only reason for earmarks is to make it difficult if not impossible for anyone to vote against or veto their content. And the only reason for that is their authors must believe they would otherwise not be enacted.
The more I’ve leaned about earmarks, the less opposed to them I am in theory. Where they’re offensive is when the powerful legislators get more of them not because of the merit of the projects, but because of the power of the legislator.
Anthony: because that’s how all legislation, and contracts in general, get done. It is unfortunate, I agree, but it’s the basis of negotiation. Senator A will not allow Senator B to get funding unless A also gets funding. It’s why so many unrelated things get lumped together, and it’s why a line-item veto power would completely nullify Congress and give the President WAAAAY too much power. Yes, Cons, I don’t want the President to be all-powerful, not even this one.
Keith Messamer over 15 years ago
Let’s get the whole bailout back, not just the piddling amount of bonuses.
hungryraptor over 15 years ago
Love this one!
Mark.Lura over 15 years ago
GENIUS!!! The hypocrisy of it all!
greeneyedtxn over 15 years ago
Yeap, lets demand the Congress to return Their raises and their earmarks along with AIG’s. Their pay should be frozen until America has a balanced budget.
claudermilk over 15 years ago
Bravo!
LateToTheGame over 15 years ago
Earmarks are as evil as guns: It depends on how they’re used. Some earmarks are for county hospitals or for airport scanning equipment. Others are for bridges to nowhere. Can you imagine a budget without earmarks? In other words, “I want a $300 billion budget, but I cannot pin down what any of it will be used towards at this time.” Earmarks say: $50,000 for this hospital, $1 million for that airport, etc.
riley05 over 15 years ago
If earmarks are so worthwhile, then why not make each one a separate piece of legislation?
The only reason for earmarks is to make it difficult if not impossible for anyone to vote against or veto their content. And the only reason for that is their authors must believe they would otherwise not be enacted.
riley05 over 15 years ago
This strip might have made sense had Congress’s cookie jar been labeled “Automatic Pay Raises”.
The AIG bonuses directly benefit the AIG execs. Earmarks help the Congressman’s district, which may only indirectly help him with more votes.
believecommonsense over 15 years ago
The more I’ve leaned about earmarks, the less opposed to them I am in theory. Where they’re offensive is when the powerful legislators get more of them not because of the merit of the projects, but because of the power of the legislator.
LateToTheGame over 15 years ago
Anthony: because that’s how all legislation, and contracts in general, get done. It is unfortunate, I agree, but it’s the basis of negotiation. Senator A will not allow Senator B to get funding unless A also gets funding. It’s why so many unrelated things get lumped together, and it’s why a line-item veto power would completely nullify Congress and give the President WAAAAY too much power. Yes, Cons, I don’t want the President to be all-powerful, not even this one.