Senate Democrats swim against anti-earmark tide

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Nov. 17, 2010 10:39 a.m.

    You are right, we don't need so many bases around the world. If other nations want us there to help with their defense, they should more than just reimburse us.

    I'll take your word for it on how much of the budget earmarks are, but they are the low hanging fruit. If congress can't eliminate that very easy discretionary spending, how do you expect them to make the tough calls?

    As for means testing social security - what you get out is based on what you put in. To implement means tests would further pervert SS.

    Or what about the case of someone who was at the poverty level throughout their working life, but because of hard work and thrift set aside enough money for a reasonably comfortable retirement? Should they be denied what they paid in poverty because now they are no longer poor?

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Nov. 17, 2010 6:54 a.m.

    It's not just the Dems, lots of GOP'ers feel the same. Earmarks have a role, and they only make up about 3/10 of 1% of the budget, if that. Discretionary domestic spending is not really the problem, though there needs to be some fixes. Look a military spending. Do we really need 700 bases around the world? How about national security programs. Do we need over 800,000 people with security clearances, a huge percentage who are contractors? How about means testing social security? And sometimes you need to spend money to make money. But when the economy turns around, and the government see more revenue, everyone will drop back into the status quo. You watch. The Republicans have a history of being demagogues on this issue.