Are earmarks good.....?

That is true. To cut the spending, you need to abolish the bills themselves.

Money is already accumulated, so earmarks don't increase spending but take away from the federal level and give back to the district.

Ron Paul always attaches earmarks. He is probably the most fiscally conservative member of congress, and votes against these bills, but why should he just let them rape us all and us not getting any of that money if a bill does get passed? It wouldn't make any sense. Money was taken from the people, so if one can give some back w/o significant additional spending, WHY NOT?

What earmarks also add is some transparency to the spending.

Even some Neocons attacked him for that position, and for him attaching earmarks, but they don't seem to understand what exactly earmarks are (it's so smart to attack the one congress member who is responsible for the least amount of spending simply for attaching earmarks. I was so frustrated when they attacked him for that.)

Many only have superficial understanding of the process. But that's what you get when you watch too much mainstream media, when they just throw around words and attach certain emotions to them.

It boils down to who gets the money and who gets stiffed. Earmarks have been around since politics. In the 70s there was actually an earmark for building a dam in Georgia in a place where they did not even have a river. Jim Carter was the governor then.

JD

Only when they are 0bama's earmarks on Pelosi's thighs...

Seriously, no. Earmarks are a fancy word for bribery...nothing more.