Contrary to popular belief — this is the first of several bits of information readers may be surprised by — cutting earmarks wouldn't necessarily cut government spending, according to independent budget experts from across the political spectrum. Jeff Patch, a budget fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute (and also a former McCain volunteer) said that "earmarks just direct funds from executive agencies to specific projects or companies." That is, while there are still a few pet projects slipped into legislation in the dark of night that do increase the federal budget, earmarks often simply tell agencies how to spend money that they are already getting. So while earmarks may drive up the cost of government slightly (by, for example, awarding no-bid contracts in a legislator's home district), cutting earmarks alone is "not sufficient for cutting wasteful spending," Patch said. The Brookings Institution's Paul Cullinan, research director of the Budgeting for National Priorities Project, agrees, saying that earmarks "might be an allocation issue" rather than a spending issue. And Scott Lilly, a senior fellow with the liberal Center for American Progress, told us that "there’s no evidence that if you took earmarks out, federal spending would go down."

John McCain will be wielding his veto pen against that type of

crap when he's in the White House!!!

I've said this over and over. We have a pork and lobby system of government. The three main activities on Capitol Hill are posturing, pandering, and influence peddling. That is what they do, period. And they get away with it as people are either sheeple or addled idiots who go around saying "Obama is Commie-Muslim", or "McCain is fascist." The cretins on Y/A wouldn't give you a straight answer to this question if their lives depended on it. Maybe we do get the government that we deserve.