What projects in your area of the US will be affected by the dearth of federal dollars?

Perhaps the most damaging cut in my neck of the woods would be the lack of funding to combat the Mountain Pine Beetle, which are decimating Colorado’s forests, contributing to massive forest fires, negatively impacting tourism, and destroying habitat for many wildlife species. The vast majority of funding to fight the pine beetle and restore forests came from earmarks and federal spending.

I understand that earmarks are often abused and spent on reckless and unnecessary things, but a simple no earmarks whatsoever policy may be just as, if not more reckless.

I have no idea if the federal funds were supposed to go towards highway 385 near Memphis, but I sure would like them to complete it. It is a loop, or beltway, or beltline, whatever you prefer to call it around The outer suburbs of Memphis, and its completion would make me very happy. There is only about 3 more exits to go, maybe 5–7 miles of road more or less. I am pretty sure it is part of the I69 system, or will be, so you would think federal funds would be thrown this way?

@hawaii_jake what happened to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 that was suppose to shore up all the infrastructure? Remember the “shovel ready” jobs?

@bkcunningham It seems those funds were all earmarks and are now slated to be slashed. Just another victim of the 2010 election.

The flood control levy system, several toxic clean up projects

@hawaii_jake This is a good thing. Here’s what the POTUS said in November. Also, the ARRA isn’t part of this new reform.

“I welcome Senator McConnell’s decision to join me and members of both parties who support cracking down on wasteful earmark spending, which we can’t afford during these tough economic times. As a Senator, I helped eliminate anonymous earmarks, and as President, I’ve called for new limitations on earmarks and set new, higher standards of transparency and accountability. But we can’t stop with earmarks as they represent only part of the problem. In the days and weeks to come, I look forward to working with Democrats and Republicans to not only end earmark spending, but to find other ways to bring down our deficits for our children.”

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/11/15/statement-president-earmark-reform

I read the article and quite honestly, I believe this is just a scare tactic for the people. Some project eliminations may be just a tactic to have the people contact their representatives to voice their opinions. Let the lions roar. This is not new. I do hope they find away to kill the pork that has been hanging over Americans for too many years. Politicians…...is anyone listening?

Yes, @john65pennington, someone is listening. I doubt anyone will argue that there weren’t some really stupid pet projects funded by the federal government. But if the article is correct, then we’re talking about cutting the very fundamental institutions of government. We’re talking about a road in Kentucky. We’re talking about a children’s shelter in Salt Lake City, not exactly a bastion of liberalism. We’re even talking about replacing a 58-year-old gym on an air force base in South Dakota.

The article states, “Spending for earmarks accounts for less than half of 1 percent of total federal spending, but it can be crucial chunks of change for localities.” Are we to assume the writer is wrong. I’ve heard that figure before, and I’m inclined to agree with it.

I think the point of this article and this question is twofold. One man’s road is another man’s pork, and earmarks are really a much smaller problem than some would lead us to believe. Getting rid of them is not going to balance the federal budget.

I think what’s at stake here is our idea of what America means. Are we a nation who comes together to meet our country’s needs? Or are we a nation of selfish individuals who say “I’ve got mine. Now, you get yours”?

America is more than the sum of its parts. It’s bigger than its individuals.

As the Revolutionary War orator Patrick Henry said, “United we stand. Divided we fall.”

@hawaii_jake there are other methods to get things funded from the Congress. Here is the Congressional Budget Office’s definition of earmark: The Administration defines “earmarks” as “funds provided by the Congress for projects, programs, or grants where the purported congressional direction (whether in statutory text, report language, or other communication) circumvents otherwise applicable merit-based or competitive allocation processes, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the executive branch to manage its statutory and constitutional responsibilities pertaining to the funds allocation process.”

Earmarks vs. Unrequested Funding. At the broadest level, unrequested funding is any additional funding provided by the Congress—in either bill or report language—for activities/projects/programs not requested by the Administration. Earmarks are a subset of unrequested funding. The distinction between earmarks and unrequested funding is programmatic control or lack thereof of in the allocation process.
Earmarks and Programmatic “Control.” If the congressional direction accompanying a project/program/funding in an appropriations bill or report or other communication purports to affect the ability of the Administration to control critical aspects of the awards process for the project/program/funding, this IS an earmark. Note: The definition of “control critical aspects” includes specification of the location or recipient or otherwise circumventing the merit-based or competitive allocation process and may be program specific. However, if the Congress adds funding and the Administration retains control over the awards process for the project/program/funding, it is NOT an earmark; it is unrequested funding that is a policy difference.
Earmarks May Include:
Add-ons. If the Administration asks for $100 million for formula grants, for example, and Congress provides $110 million and places restrictions (such as site-specific locations) on the additional $10 million, the additional $10 million is counted as an earmark.
Carve-outs. If the Administration asks for $100 million and Congress provides $100 million but places restrictions on some portion of the funding that circumvents merit and competitive allocation processes or curtails the Executive branch’s ability to properly manage funds, the restricted portion is counted as an earmark.
Funding provisions that do not name a grantee(s), but are so specific that only a small number or specific grantee can qualify for funding.

http://earmarks.omb.gov/earmarks-public/earmarks_definition.html

Pork barrel spending is just a distraction. If you took ALL of the pork barrel spending money from the last decade… it comes in under 100 billion.

A lot over time… But you also have to remember that this isn’t money going into senators pockets… its money for projects in their districts.

Something we should watch? Sure. A real problem congress needs to be focusing on? Not really.

Just another tactic politicians are using to make you think they’re doing things.