When I read that (though not only because of reading that) I thought, you know, I’m going to end up voting for McCain.

I have read that earmarks are (more or less) federal tax money, paid via our taxes, that a state gets to spend, nd if not spent by the state (earmarked) for a particular project, then the money goes back to the federal bucket to be spent. I have also heard that earmarks are, money that that are requests from Congressman for ADDITIONAL federal money (for example, a request for federal money to build a new park) Are either of these correct?

In general usage, an earmark is when a congressperson specifically directs federal funds to a project or group. The problems with earmarks are numerous.

Many times they are stuck in after a bill has been voted on, meaning they are not approved by the whole House or Senate. They give congressmen and women the ability to dole out favors via targeted spending, thus encouraging corruption. They disrupt the functionality of government by circumventing federal agencies who might otherwise deem other projects more worthy of funding. They are the primary way pork gets moved and many argue that the ability to earmark actually encourages congress to approve larger than needed budgets so that each congress member can earmark funds for their pet projects (usually in their districts).

There is a lot of debate about the harmfulness of earmarks. I have no problem with targeted spending reviewed and approved by all of congress. But I think allowing each member to stick in their own earmarks is one of the chief reasons our spending is out of control (not to mention incredibly inefficient).

Earmarks are an institutional problem and, as a resident of NY, I would rather my senator gain our share of the taxes we pay back to the state instead of taking a stand (in isolation) while projects in Alaska get funded.

If you want to change politics as usual, change the institutions that govern the earmarks (such as making them up for review by the entire congress).  Or, in modern parlance, do not hate the player, hate the game.

(such as making them up for review by the entire congress). Or, in modern parlance, do not hate the player, hate the game.

The players make and make up the game. I’d rather my senator reject such excessive wasting of our taxpayer dollar’s and being a lone voice instead of being greedy and buying more votes.

OK, Sy, so elect McCain to the presidency then and he’ll veto any bill with earmarks in it. Institutional problem: solved.

BTW, aside from the fact that the earmark process is just wrong (and not transparent enough), a bigger issue is that corruption and buying of influence that goes along with it. It’s true that cutting all pork from the budget wouldn’t go that far toward balancing our budget, but the real problem is the way the money changes hands- it almost always means contracts being awarded to friends, family members, and donors to the candidates. Add to that the insidious tendency for voters to think of their senators and reps as the candymen who bring home the goodies (instead of being in DC to vote on projects that are good for the country as a whole, and keeping in mind what the role of the federal govt really sh0uld be) and earmarks are definitely a problem in our system that goes way beyond the actual dollar cost.

I’m thinking of a potential ad for McCain: he could show various projects like the Woodstock museum, with the price tags. Then show his own record of $0 earmarks over his career with the voiceover saying "A Congressman who couldn’t be bought: priceless".

Interested,

I’m sure that McCain has been able to take the high ground on earmarks because his Senate seat was never endangered in the past (though the immigration issue is affecting his popularity now), he always got re-elected on high margins. Other Senators, and especially Congressmen, need to pander to keep their office.

McCain will win the earmark debate, easily.   Yes, the players help construct the rules of the game and to change those rules, you have to elect people who will actually author legislation to fix those rules.  This fails, however, when contrasting Obama and Hillary  as touting Obama as less beholden to the earmark process may just be his lack of influence within the system, not a demonstration of being anti-earmark. 

A quasi-commitment to decreasing earmarks does not bode well for either Democratic contender.  Yet, as the rules stand, I am much happier that a state that pays so much into the federal tax system (NY), gets so much in return due to the influence and ability of our senator. 

Also, it might be harder to get those subsidies if you are subsidized by the other states already -

Federal Spending Received per dollar of tax paid in 2005:

Arizona (McCain): 1.19
Illinois (Obama): .75
New York (Clinton): .79

To note, New York has been losing money per dollar tax dollar spent every year since 2001, when Clinton was sworn in.   Illinois has does not have enough data points to make a reasonable assessment for Obama (since it was only 2004).  Arizona dropped in 1994,  climbed until 2004, and might be decreasing now.

From:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22685.html

I am much happier that a state that pays so much into the federal tax system (NY), gets so much in return due to the influence and ability of our senator.

which serves to increase the amount everyone must pay in taxes.  People pay that, it is not free.

Correct, NY pays that, and more.  Without NY, everyone elses taxes would be higher given that the state pays way more than it receives (both per capita and by raw numbers).

Without NY, everyone elses taxes would be higher given that the state pays way more than it receives (both per capita and by raw numbers).

You should break off, and join the EU.

just be sure to take both Senators with you.