http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/special...;SECTION=EUROPE

Interesting, there doesn't really seem to be any kind of pattern to it. I guess the more populated the area the more earmarks get used.

 

Earmarks are only worth about 15 billion? That's even less than I thought.

Interesting, there doesn't really seem to be any kind of pattern to it. I guess the more populated the area the more earmarks get used.

 

Earmarks are only worth about 15 billion? That's even less than I thought.

Well, it depends on how you count "earmarks". If you use the most generous definition possible, where it's any time Congress directs money to anything, you can get a higher number. But the trap is...a lot of that money is actually pretty useful, and ranting and raving against the evils of earmarks can get you in to trouble. For example, McCain's campaign a month ago or so started talking about how they were going to help balance the budget by getting rid of like $60 billion in earmarks a year. But then, people started pointing out the things that included...like, "Senator McCain, ever dollar of aid given to Israel by the U.S. fits that definition. Are you in favor of the U.S. eliminating aid to Israel"? ETc.

 

The pattern, if you're looking for one, also does show up, in that if you're looking at the per capita earmarks, you have to look at which state has the longest serving senators who know how to game the budget. Alaska is #1 in earmarks per person, because of Senator Tubes and Senator "No I have no idea who put that earmark in there" Young. West Virginia is #3 thanks to Robert Byrd. Etc.

Texas has two Senators® and a President® who hails from the Lone Star State. Plus a VP who was a Texan until the Constitution and not allowing a Pres and VP from the same state crept up.

Per capita is really the only good way to look at it in my opinion. Should California get more money in projects than say New Jersey? Probably, given that it has a population that's much larger.

Well, it depends on how you count "earmarks". If you use the most generous definition possible, where it's any time Congress directs money to anything, you can get a higher number. But the trap is...a lot of that money is actually pretty useful, and ranting and raving against the evils of earmarks can get you in to trouble. For example, McCain's campaign a month ago or so started talking about how they were going to help balance the budget by getting rid of like $60 billion in earmarks a year. But then, people started pointing out the things that included...like, "Senator McCain, ever dollar of aid given to Israel by the U.S. fits that definition. Are you in favor of the U.S. eliminating aid to Israel"? ETc.

 

The pattern, if you're looking for one, also does show up, in that if you're looking at the per capita earmarks, you have to look at which state has the longest serving senators who know how to game the budget. Alaska is #1 in earmarks per person, because of Senator Tubes and Senator "No I have no idea who put that earmark in there" Young. West Virginia is #3 thanks to Robert Byrd. Etc.

 

Don Young is the states Rep. not Sen.

 

But coconut road was quite a fiasco no?

That is an interesting map.