Sensible Earmarks Need to be Brought Back So Legislation Can Get Passed Again.

Me, "The problem with Earmarks was that they were abused, but without them, it makes getting sensible legislation passed impossible. If a member of congress would go up to a representative, even from another party, and say 'look, I'll vote for your legislation, if you vote for my earmark,' was how things got done. With that process removed, we got congressional gridlock.
I agree there was some abuses, but instead of putting some reforms on it to make it less abused, and more beneficial, it was scrapped totally. It's kind of like going to the Dr. and saying your arm hurts and instead of giving you a painkiller, he cuts your arm off. Earmarks need to be brought back in a sensible way so legislation can get passed again."



From article, "Bring back bacon? Southern Illinois congressmen push for return of budget earmarks"


(For decades until the late 1980s, southern Illinois earned a generous share of federal earmarks that helped fund projects such as its interstate highway system, post offices and hospitals.

“Why wasn’t Obama like Johnson? One good reason was he didn’t have earmarks,” Jackson told The Southern Illinoisian. “There’s no more wheeling and dealing. Johnson would say to a Southern senator or House member, ‘I’d like your vote on the Civil Rights Act.’ They’d say, ‘No way. Not going to happen.’ And he’d say, ‘You know that lake or highway or dam or federal building you’ve wanted, I can make that happen, but I need your vote.’

“It’s called horse trading and people think it’s unseemly, but it was part of the legislative process."

Earmarks were scrapped about five years ago by former House Speaker John Boehner in the face of corruption charges and embarrassing projects like Alaska's "Bridge to Nowhere" that were funded by the practice.

Administrative funding decisions are intended to remove politics from the equation through need-based formulas, but Shimkus argued that does not always happen and that House and Senate members should have a say in prioritization of some projects in their districts.

"We have a couple of members in jail because of it," he said, acknowledging that congressional earmarks did get abused. "So not only was it abused, we had members who broke the law and did time. Now, we are trying to find a way to reclaim our constitutional authority and ensure the public trust through transparency."

Bost said by bringing earmarks back, certain "sensible" guidelines would be implemented to protect the process from corruption.

Shimkus said he would be in favor of limitation on earmarks, where the process only could be used to direct federal dollars to other government agencies and public infrastructure projects, not to businesses or individuals.)