what do you think about veto every bill with earmarks until the social security trust is paid back?

Answer 1

Good idea no more subsides to ADM

Answer 2

I think that's utterly foolish -- because that means the only ones that pass are the ones that allow unfettered discretion in spending.

An earmark is just a designation that certain money given to an agency must be spent on a particular project. Example -- if a bridge needs to be rebuilt or a park replanted after a fire -- it's an earmark that designates some of the money going to that agency for that purpose -- without the earmark, the agency can spend the money on anything they want.

You want to eliminate earmarks -- that means you want to eliminate the ability of Congress to actually make specific decisions about what projects to fund and instead force Congress to just give money away and blindly hope that it actually gets where it needs to go.

That's what got us into this problem in the first place -- not paying enough attention to where money gets spent.

Answer 3

I'm all for that. I think earmarks should be banned from bills. They are sneaky and against the way a democracy is supposed to work!

Answer 4

President doesn't support domestic issues cause the take away from the war/ bring home half of troops cut that cost out of budget and dump it in domestic crisises at home like payin of Bedt!! to people of united states first i wonder what would happen it every citizen sued the president and family after he left office for neglect!!! of them!!! say about 10,000 each citizen courts would be over whelmed!! that for sure..and resolution would be written to recend all that he did! including the war and ask Iraq to pay the cost of war themselves!!

Answer 5

One can sympathize with the thought, but as a practical matter it isn't realistic. Also, "paying back" the Social Security fund isn't meaningful -- it would simply be substituting one set of IOU's for another.

Answer 6

Another abuse of veto power!