| Author |
Message |
![[Post New]](/community/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif) Mar/11/2010 10:13:03
|
BobTS1007522
C. elegans
Joined: May/23/2008 11:42:39
Messages: 103
Offline
|
Democrats in the US House of Representatives yesterday (10th March) proposed a ban on federal earmarks for private companies. Not to be outdone on the clean hands posturing front, House Republicans countered with a proposed moratorium on all earmarks (even those that go to universities for the construction of facilities and for scientific research).
The Washington Post reports that earmarks "account for less than $16 billion of the more than $1 trillion a year Congress spends," so banning earmarks would have a limited effect on overall spending.
The Senate isn't likely to follow suit, however, because many Senators say that recent moves to make the lobbying and earmarking process more transparent are sufficient to restore the voting public's trust in the federal appropriations process.
Do you think the House's ban on for-profit earmarks herald's a new era of pork-free appropriations bills? Do you think a more comprehensive moratorium would good or bad thing for research and/or federal science agencies?
Bob Grant -- Associate Editor, The Scientist
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at Mar/11/2010 10:15:47
|
|
|
 |
![[Post New]](/community/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif) Mar/11/2010 13:17:20
|
THOMAS105740
E. coli
Joined: Jun/05/2008 13:18:48
Messages: 3
Offline
|
Yes Earmarks for Universities and Medical Schools should also be discontinued. Pork is Pork no mater where it goes!
|
|
|
 |
![[Post New]](/community/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif) Mar/11/2010 13:39:39
|
RICHARDICN000304172
E. coli
Joined: Jun/05/2008 12:55:28
Messages: 4
Offline
|
Agreed. Earmarks have absolutely no place in science funding.
Earmarks support subpar research by subpar researchers.
Earmarks divert funds from productive research to unproductive research.
Earmarks need to be ended, and the opportunist hacks who have received earmarks in the past need to be outed and shamed.
RHE
|
|
|
 |
|
Advertisement
|
![[Post New]](/community/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif) Mar/11/2010 15:09:08
|
ChristopherTS1079071
E. coli
Joined: May/27/2009 14:06:01
Messages: 2
Offline
|
Even if earmarking itself is made transparent, ie, congressis required to say who sponsored it and to whom it will be going, there is still no transparency in how the congressional member decided person X or place Y was going to get the earmark. That's the really dirty part of earmarks.
And as noted above, they can (and in my experience often do) support subpar research without any oversight.
Down with earmarks!!
|
|
|
 |
![[Post New]](/community/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif) May/15/2010 21:38:22
|
JonathanTS1171439
E. coli
Joined: May/15/2010 21:29:27
Messages: 5
Offline
|
I agree with Christopher. Earmarks should definitely be discontinued.
|
hostgator free | hostgator 1 cent |
|
|
 |
![[Post New]](/community/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif) May/18/2010 07:24:27
|
TerryTS1172155
E. coli
Joined: May/18/2010 07:21:06
Messages: 3
Offline
|
It is nothing but a good move. Say goodbye to Earmarks!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at May/18/2010 07:25:13
|
I help with researching affordable Tennessee Individual Health Insurance
|
|
|
 |
|
Advertisement
|
|
|