Earmarks - good or bad?
March 11, 2008
Pursuant to our new House Rule 5.3(F) that we passed earlier this year, spending requests that did not come through an agency are required to have a sponsor’s name and description. (Note: new spending requests. Anything previously in the budget prior to this year was not required to be disclosed).
I’m pleased we are letting the sun shine in this year and creating more transparency - not only for us as elected officials; but also the citizens of our state.
You decide….here’s this year’s earmarks that were on our desks this morning.
How would you vote?
Comments
3 Responses to “Earmarks - good or bad?”
Got something to say?
[…] hours for roughly seven billion dollars (that’s a seven with NINE zeros: $7,000,000,000). * The Earmark List arrived on our desks the morning of the Budget Debate and allowed very little time to draft any […]
I think earmarks should be against the law at the stateand national level. All taxpayer money spent should be presented for discussion prior to approval.
I agree with Janet Marshall that ear marks should be illegal. If it is important and worthy it should stand the test of discussion and debate.