Topic: “Earmarks for special interests should be abolished”

This chapter debates on the topic,’ Earmarks for special interests should be abolished.’ Earmarks have been controversial for decades, with opponents arguing that they create bloated and wasteful budgets to the detriment of taxpayers. They are also seen as the main means by which “pork barrel” politics is practiced, with Congressmen competing to insert as many earmarks as possible into legislation in order to bring federal spending into their state and so boost their chances of re-election. In this issue paper I aim to investigate both the pros and cons proposed by Jeffrey Lazarus and Scott A. Frisch and Sean Q Kelly where one debater is for the topic and the other is against the topic. I personally agree with Jeffrey Lazarus who takes a stand with the topic through the reasoning he provides for his decision. Jeffrey Lazarus supports the fact that earmarks should be abolished in that he reasons that such policy is the direct legal way to steal money from taxpayers. He uses Murtha as an example as a way that congressman can beat the system of illegally trading earmarks. This was all portrayed through Murtha organizing a system of campaign funding in which he procured millions of dollars through a lobbying firm; PMA Group, which helped businesses get earmarks from Murtha. All earmarks from Murtha were controlled by PMA and PMA facilitated clients to set up with fake organizations and businesses to get around campaign finance laws that limited the value of monetary donations given by individuals. This campaign was eventually caught but the money that it took from tax payers still left a mark. This example lead to why I chose to take a stand with Jeffrey Lazarus’s claim as I feel that Earmarks can be easily taken advantage of and can cause damages to the citizens via tax.
He also states that congress can get the government to spend the money on what they personally want the government to fund, basically on what their major interests are. And, as these earmarks aren’t agreed upon by any committee or group these private transactions make it easier not only to support members’ personal interests but also to find someone who would donate to their campaign. His second claim states that private residents who profit from an earmark can easily identify the congressman responsible for attaining the spending and reward them accordingly. In 2008 and 2010 more than half of all members of the Senate and the House received campaign donations from organizations for which they personally safeguarded earmarks. Also, congress received approximately $100,000 not taking into consideration the lobbying firms through earmarks. These figures do not include donations made to members by lobbying firms that help beneficiaries get the earmarks. In my opinion, through these two main points made by Lazarus it is clear that even though it is ethical to do so, too much is being spent on personal interests rather than a community as a whole. Therefore, eventually the common man loses while Congress members acquire large sums of donation money to support their campaigns to stay in their positions only by using taxpayer money.
Lazarus agrees that earmarks have done well for the country by supporting hospitals, and military facilities, but it is known that only the most influential members of congress get the most funding, irrespective of the other member’s needs. And although earmarks do not play a bigger role in budget deficit, but is a legal way of allowing the common man’s pays to be used in helping one person get what he want which according to me is not only unethical but could be