The other side of earmarks

In general, the term "earmark" has received a negative connotation, bring forth the image of wasteful spending on bridges to no where and the like. While some people are trying to get rid of earmarks, others are willing to defend them, saying that overall they are not as bad as we think. In Miami, one of the busiest ports in the US, Bill Johnson, Miami port director, plans for a "dredging project to accommodate massive cargo ships that will soon use an expanded Panama Canal". He says it would be able to open before the expansions are complete, if the project receives 75 million from the Fed. He also points out that all of America's major ports have been funded through federal earmarks.

Even environmentalist groups argues that some earmarks are okay. Earmarks spent on the Everglades go beyond 400 million, not only helping to preserve the environment, but also providing over 400 thousand jobs in the long term and 26 thousand short term construction jobs. Although they do admit that some reform might be necessary, they worry that Congress might give up too much power to decide which projects deserve appropriate funds.

So here are two examples of earmarks being used for the general good, contrary to the standard image of earmarks. Unfortunately, people tend not remember the questions that they guessed correctly and only get angry for guessing incorrectly. While earmarks, are not necessarily good or bad, they do help things move through Congress a little faster and can provide funds in places that need it.

So what do you think about this? Should every speck of earmark be obliterated and destroyed, or should they be kept around?

-a G.U. from the Helix King