Over the past year or so, there has been a lot of talk about earmarks. The House passed a moratorium on earmarks, but legislation to permanently ban them hasn’t been yet garnered the necessary widespread support.

Opponents slam earmarks as a way to push through pet projects, wasting already scarce taxpayer money. Supporters contend they only represent less than 1% of federal spending and say earmarks are an important way secure funding for essential projects all across the country.

Most recently, Senators Claire McCaskill (D-MO) and Pat Toomey (R-PA) introduced a permanent earmark ban as an amendment to an insider-trading bill. The bipartisan amendment quickly received a bipartisan lukewarm reception. Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) non-committedly remarked, “I am not sure we need it, but I am open to it.” Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid contended, “I’ve done earmarks all my career, and I’m happy I’ve done earmarks all my career. They’ve helped my state, and they’ve helped different projects around the country.”

Explaining the reasoning behind a permanent ban, Sen. Toomey said, “There is an opportunity for corruption. A process like that is badly flawed and should be remedied.”

The amendment could be voted on this week.

Do you think earmarks should be permanently banned in an effort to reduce wasteful spending? Or should they be maintained as a way to fund necessary projects across the country? Let us know in the comments!

BA