Earmarks Out, 'Special Projects' In?
Lawmakers looking to rebrand pork
- Duration 7:23
- Date Dec 3, 2011
Lawmakers looking to rebrand pork
Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
Pork filled earmarks -- special projects and while Democrats or Republicans are all punting on cutting spending both parties were trying to sneak these so called special projects for their districts and other bills.
Special trees to be exact all adding up to nine and a half billion box.
Now calls to ban them for good whatever they're being called.
Hi everybody I'm David -- thanks for joining us welcome to Forbes on FOX let's go in focus -- ritual of guard Victoria Barrick Rick I'm here.
Dennis Neil and Mike.
-- Iranian Victoria what do you think about these special projects.
You got to get rid of them entirely.
I mean that the problem here is a lot of money.
It was the last this year than last year because we've tried to ban them.
But banning them sort of seeing that didn't actually work we're talking about nine billion dollars and everyone is guilty here and when you look through these projects.
And even you know the good congress people are stepping in their little special prizes so you have to get rid of them they become the currency of reelection.
They're dirty -- this just dirty politics and it's a lot of money.
Might go -- -- couldn't possibly be against getting rid of these special projects could you.
-- and David that's because they don't solve the problem which is too much spending spending levels are set before a single earmark is appropriated.
It's not gonna do anything to help the economy look the stimulus plan didn't have a single earmark from congress yet money was sent for turtle tunnels a tennis court.
-- Andy Mac all these -- about titles incentives towards.
They sound like chump change but when you added up it's real money to throw money and also -- Tom Colbern senators right.
I he's saying -- gateway drug to spending addiction.
And that we see more spending and bigger appropriations bills mid 90000 earmarks the last decade the government has doubled during that time.
Occurred -- look at this country existed for 200 years without earmarks they're not in the enumerated powers of the -- solution.
And even Thomas Jefferson said no to your -- no to this kind of -- Dennis frankly.
Paying for politicians to get reelected that's what these -- -- right that's exactly what it is the question is what -- Banning them let's ban earmarks is gonna work -- all let's remember something bringing home the bacon has always been the one of the points -- politics.
You know you're against -- doesn't -- -- all the time bring -- home for -- so eliminating earmarks is -- gonna change that habit there are other ways to fix this though and how much spinning really going on here.
It's 32 dollars.
Out of 3500.
Dollar for the three half trillion dollar budget.
And it's like thirty billion this won't fix the problem it's just optics and make us feel better all right well rich today it may make us feel better may not do a lot way to win the whole budget but it's -- started -- it.
Yeah I think it's a start.
Dennis is exactly right it's not big but the optics are good.
With demoralized is the American people is this feeling that -- government is becoming increasingly sneaky.
And doing things in -- less transparent way after all of these.
Promises of transparency.
But the real issue eyes is right -- spending and its growth we've got to get economic growth up.
If we had economic growth that we could afford -- 3.5.
Trillion dollar federal budget but our growth doesn't support it now.
Well Rick this bottom line should we be banning these earmarks.
Bottom line is no matter what any of us have to say it's never gonna happen look.
Congress could theoretically legislate a ban on earmarks but you know what's gonna happen that.
They're gonna go walking right -- over to the executive branch where they're gonna hit up the agencies to take from their budget to give the politicians what they need.
To take on the port.
It's not -- -- a -- Mac Donald Ronald Reagan vetoed a 121.
Earmarks in 1987.
But my problem too with.
Earmarks is it to make this country look like he's back to stay with all the monuments -- At all options do our tax dollars to build statues burning bridges or roads after the and -- -- -- we don't want our country look at like Uzbekistan.
Mike while an Internet who's Becky was back east Dan -- back teased at whatever it's called we don't like in my mind that you're like dinners I give -- -- word of caution if you ban him a congress that means you're giving the president President Obama more power on where this money is spent is that what you wanna do it.
How Victoria if and if these -- expand says I don't mind about having a little more power to cut expenses right.
Oh yeah and you know -- to his credit he talked when he was when he came into office he said that he -- take the earmarks down to their 2004 levels which is.
Half -- where they were last year you know he haven't had in the right place -- just had a week from a policy perspective make this happen I think we've formed a little pork.
Bucket of pork barrel -- -- little guys can.
Hit -- you already it's it's only made two million dollar that you just have at it you know I chipped it about five dollars one of those pork barrels I think that's -- I'm sure.
-- -- Barre fix a better fix than an outright ban on earmarks would propose this week.
By Republican rep Paul Ryan and democratic rep Chris van Holland they want the president line item veto but did for the stuff that the president picks out that he doesn't like.
Congress have to take a transparent public vote on what to say no we want that to be spent after all and our problem with earmarks -- is that it's all secret can put into it.
By the way out of line item -- what that means the president gets all -- bill with a whole lot of spending he can pick out individual items and cross -- say that's too much money really call that -- is not a good idea or bad idea.
Well you know most of the states in the United States have them and I think it's a good idea we needs to impose some kind of -- fiscal discipline.
On these guys because are unable to do it.
Themselves in the end you know we got to keep our eyes on the prize though in the eyes.
The prizes we've got to cut the budget we've got to ignite growth and get the balance back right Rick -- says is the -- of embarrassing congressman on or embarrass them.
Rick what about the idea about the line item veto giving -- patent the power power to the president's acts out those items are too much.
I can't believe I'm going to say this but odds is right yeah.
Don't know what they don't you wouldn't do that look at the cornhuskers kicked back with senator Ben Nelson getting federal money to -- Medicaid.
Expenses for this date in order to get his -- for health reform this president wouldn't do that.
Rich what event.
I hope this president wouldn't do that but you know -- that proof is in the -- again we need transparency we probably need something like a balanced budget amendment.
And fundamentally we need to get the percentage of federal spending down below 20% where it was during Clinton where it was during George W.
Bush in his first term.
That's when you get the most economic or.
-- you have Victoria isn't that the bottom line that that what we have to do is -- for the kind of government that we had before President Obama which was big enough as it won't let us.
-- yes and the government have gotten way too big and and by doing some sort of line item veto it sounds clever but you're just making earmarks even more.
Political and in the fundamental question why is the national budget.
Going to these little pin only projects it doesn't make sense of our local -- initiative that should be getting local funding if there were -- -- Vicki got the first and the last word on this segment thank you again one of.