Bob Bennett's defense of congressional earmarks baffling

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • WestGranger West Valley City, Utah
    May 16, 2012 7:33 a.m.

    Mr. Bennett points out the reactionary politics of some segments of the republican party. We need a strong yet reasoned response the years of irresponsibility in Washington.There are different kinds of earmarks.

  • SEY Sandy, UT
    May 15, 2012 4:30 p.m.

    True enough, CHS 85. The writer was complaining about wasteful spending of our representatives as if eliminating earmarks would solve the problem. Really?? Congress would be spending wisely without earmarks? Not in this world! The only positive solution is to stop allowing them to have so much money to practice their wasteful spending habits in the first place.

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    May 15, 2012 3:49 p.m.


    What earmarks do, though, is take money from programs that have been approved by Congress in the budget and take the money to pet projects. It is a no-win situation for the agencies affected. I'll give you an example. The National Weather Service received it's allocation of funds for the year. Personnel decision, long range planning, and expenditures were set up and priorities made based on those dollar figures. A Senator, Patty Murray from Washington decided that a second radar in the Seattle area needed to be earmarked taking millions of dollars from priorities that had already been set and the wheels were already in motion. So the agency was required to purchase a doppler radar system and not complete projects that they were required by the same Congress to accomplish. It is an absolute no-win for anyone other than Patty Murray who can now boast about how she got the residents a second radar - which they didn't even need.

  • ugottabkidn Sandy, UT
    May 15, 2012 11:43 a.m.

    Does the author not realize his education is a product of earmarks? Bob Bennett is out because he wanted to work as a United States Senator, not a Tea Party activist that had no clue what the original Tea Party was about.

  • SEY Sandy, UT
    May 15, 2012 9:48 a.m.

    No, Bob's point was that earmarks DON'T ADD ANYTHING to the federal budget. The writer of this letter didn't bother reading the article, apparently. Earmarks merely designate where ALREADY APPROPRIATED money should be spent. If you don't earmark, expenditures are determined by the executive branch instead of congress where the responsibility rightly lies. The writer apparently wants the president to have control of all money appropriated by congress. I say keep as much of it out of his hands as possible.

  • KDave Moab, UT
    May 15, 2012 8:55 a.m.

    Bobs' point was that because of a few bad apples, we now have no apples.