DeMint and Cantor both say they want to ban earmarks. I haven’t seen any statement from Boehner on earmarks, but I think a ban on earmarks would be a great first step toward cleaning up Congress.
Congress needs a clean break from business as usual and earmarks are one of the most egregious vehicles for corruption.
but they are also one of the easiest ways to send $$$ back to your district, and more than anything else, Congress’s job is to control the purse strings.
And really, while earmarks have the potential to cause corruption, their ban might not be something we like.
Say for instance, Obama refuses to provide the resources to BATF to permit the importation and sale of Garands. Well, Congress can step in and earmark money to BATF specifically for that purpose.
But if we ban earmarks . . . . .
Or, say, EPA decides to continue to regulate greenhouse gases. In the EPA appropriations bill, an earmark can be inserted preventing EPA from spending any money to regulate greenhouse gases.
But if we ban earmarks . . . . . .
The point is, be careful for what you wish for.
It may come back to bite you in unintended ways down the road (and of course, the scum bags on the hill will stop putting in “earmarks” and continue doing the same thing and simply call it something else).
I can invent any number of situations where an earmark might be good, that’s not the issue.
Your BATF example is nonsensical. BATF import rulings have nothing to do with earmarks.
Also, your EPA example isn’t an earmark, it’s defunding.
I think you may be confused as to what an earmark actually is.