I am not saying that I am in support of Earmarks, but I am certainly not against all of them. An earmark by Senator Mikulski just brought us here in Worcester County $950,000.00 closer to a dualized US 113... The same highway that killed 4 people a few weeks ago.
I agree that some earmarks are bad, but some are good too.
You do know that this will not reduce the deficit don't you? Earmarks are money that is already in the bill - its just a requirement of how it is to be spent - thus the term 'earmark'. Big to do about nothing.
I'm sure it is filled with all kinds of loopholes that our elected officials are already aware of and will use to their benefit.
ReplyDelete12:14 Why don't we read it before condemning it.
ReplyDelete12:34 you must be on the wrong board because no one here reads anything besides a headline before they condemn it.
ReplyDeleteWe don't need to read it! It's more smoke and mirrors! That's how Washington works!
ReplyDeleteI am not saying that I am in support of Earmarks, but I am certainly not against all of them. An earmark by Senator Mikulski just brought us here in Worcester County $950,000.00 closer to a dualized US 113... The same highway that killed 4 people a few weeks ago.
ReplyDeleteI agree that some earmarks are bad, but some are good too.
You do know that this will not reduce the deficit don't you? Earmarks are money that is already in the bill - its just a requirement of how it is to be spent - thus the term 'earmark'. Big to do about nothing.
ReplyDelete