>>Can someone explain to me why earmarks are now seen as always bad? Doesn't a Senator or Rep have a reponsibility to try to secure funding for projects in their home states? Sure, some projects may be pork, but surely not all of them are?
>
>If I am not mistaken, earmarks are added to a bill without any or with very little scrutiny and often they are added after the bill has been passed.

Ahh, right, I'd forgotten that part of the issue. Then I would agree with you.


>So, they are really "freebies", and that is why they are considered "bad" unless you are on the receiving end.
>
>I think amendments and earmarks should not be allowed on a bill unless they are relevant to that particular bill. Maybe there should be a quarterly "earmark" bill in which all of the pork is placed. They should all be subject to some rules and a lot of public scutiny.