earmarks

That doesn't invalidate the idea of passing tax cuts just like earmarks don't invalidate the idea of government spending.

The idea of earmarks is to attach them to a law that was going to pass anyway.

Or is this another red herring like earmarks that amounts to a few billion here and there?

Even though earmarks haven't completely disappeared, their reduction is forcing Congress to rework motivation for getting votes for bills.

And every bill being passed is chock-full of earmarks and back-end deals that would sicken most.

Situations like this often arise from alumni putting crazy earmarks on the donations to their colleges.

The problem with earmarks isn't the total that they add as a broken-out line item.

We give anonymous and accurate data that identifies earmarks, demographic trends, hot button items, etc.

So for being such a small percentage of the budget, earmarks were hugely influential to congress members in getting them to vote.

Why would they include earmarks in a bill if they were superfluous.

Really, earmarks are bad because they're a corrupting influence that encourages legislators to vote for bills for reasons other than the bills' individual merits.

Why would earmarks be more likely if laws had expiration dates?

We need to move beyond the "earmarks is a small percentage of the budget so they don't matter" meme.

The author's comments and general attitude have all the earmarks of a "trust-funded" childhood.

The government, via Reserve Bank of India, earmarks specific sectors, in line with their current policy, as "priority sector".

"earmarks" which account for approximately 0% of the budget Great, then completely eliminating pork barrel spending shouldn't hurt anyone.

Earmarks are like catalysts in a chemical reaction.