This is an online debate forum at "The Scientist.com" These guys get it, so why can't the Senate? The Senate is trying to avoid the earmark debate by saying the public's trust has been restored by their new transparency. Give me a break! When will they realize that we aren't falling for this type of nonsense any more?
Forum Index ? Debate -- The Politics of Science
Mar/11/2010
BobTS1007522
S. cerevisiae
Democrats in the US House of Representatives yesterday (10th March) proposed a ban on federal earmarks for private companies. Not to be outdone on the clean hands posturing front, House Republicans countered with a proposed moratorium on all earmarks (even those that go to universities for the construction of facilities and for scientific research).
The Washington Post reports that earmarks "account for less than $16 billion of the more than $1 trillion a year Congress spends," so banning earmarks would have a limited effect on overall spending.
The Senate isn't likely to follow suit, however, because many Senators say that recent moves to make the lobbying and earmarking process more transparent are sufficient to restore the voting public's trust in the federal appropriations process.
Do you think the House's ban on for-profit earmarks herald's a new era of pork-free appropriations bills? Do you think a more comprehensive moratorium would good or bad thing for research and/or federal science agencies?
Bob Grant -- Associate Editor, The Scientist
THOMAS105740
Yes Earmarks for Universities and Medical Schools should also be discontinued. Pork is Pork no mater where it goes!
RICHARDICN000304172
Agreed. Earmarks have absolutely no place in science funding.
Earmarks support subpar research by subpar researchers.
Earmarks divert funds from productive research to unproductive research.
Earmarks need to be ended, and the opportunist hacks who have received earmarks in the past need to be outed and shamed.
Forum Index ? Debate -- The Politics of Science
Mar/11/2010
BobTS1007522
S. cerevisiae
Democrats in the US House of Representatives yesterday (10th March) proposed a ban on federal earmarks for private companies. Not to be outdone on the clean hands posturing front, House Republicans countered with a proposed moratorium on all earmarks (even those that go to universities for the construction of facilities and for scientific research).
The Washington Post reports that earmarks "account for less than $16 billion of the more than $1 trillion a year Congress spends," so banning earmarks would have a limited effect on overall spending.
The Senate isn't likely to follow suit, however, because many Senators say that recent moves to make the lobbying and earmarking process more transparent are sufficient to restore the voting public's trust in the federal appropriations process.
Do you think the House's ban on for-profit earmarks herald's a new era of pork-free appropriations bills? Do you think a more comprehensive moratorium would good or bad thing for research and/or federal science agencies?
Bob Grant -- Associate Editor, The Scientist
THOMAS105740
Yes Earmarks for Universities and Medical Schools should also be discontinued. Pork is Pork no mater where it goes!
RICHARDICN000304172
Agreed. Earmarks have absolutely no place in science funding.
Earmarks support subpar research by subpar researchers.
Earmarks divert funds from productive research to unproductive research.
Earmarks need to be ended, and the opportunist hacks who have received earmarks in the past need to be outed and shamed.