Comments (11) Jump to Comments Form

1. 

   Sandor_at_the_Zoo said, 8 months ago

   Let’s get the whole bailout back, not just the piddling amount of bonuses.

2. 

   hungryraptor said, 8 months ago

   Love this one!

3. 

   Mark.Lura said, 8 months ago

   GENIUS!!! The hypocrisy of it all!

4. 

   Greeneyed Texan said, 8 months ago

   Yeap, lets demand the Congress to return Their raises and their earmarks along with AIG’s. Their pay should be frozen until America has a balanced budget.

5. 

   claudermilk said, 8 months ago

   Bravo!

6. 

   fennec said, 8 months ago

   Oddly enough, in both cases we are talking about a very small percentage of the total monies involved (for what it’s worth).

7. 

   LateToTheGame said, 8 months ago

   Earmarks are as evil as guns: It depends on how they’re used. Some earmarks are for county hospitals or for airport scanning equipment. Others are for bridges to nowhere. Can you imagine a budget without earmarks? In other words, “I want a $300 billion budget, but I cannot pin down what any of it will be used towards at this time.” Earmarks say: $50,000 for this hospital, $1 million for that airport, etc.

8. 

   Anthony 2816 said, 8 months ago

   If earmarks are so worthwhile, then why not make each one a separate piece of legislation?

   The only reason for earmarks is to make it difficult if not impossible for anyone to vote against or veto their content. And the only reason for that is their authors must believe they would otherwise not be enacted.

9. 

   Anthony 2816 said, 8 months ago

   This strip might have made sense had Congress’s cookie jar been labeled “Automatic Pay Raises”.

   The AIG bonuses directly benefit the AIG execs. Earmarks help the Congressman’s district, which may only indirectly help him with more votes.

10. 

    believecommonsense said, 8 months ago

    The more I’ve leaned about earmarks, the less opposed to them I am in theory. Where they’re offensive is when the powerful legislators get more of them not because of the merit of the projects, but because of the power of the legislator.

11. 

    LateToTheGame said, 8 months ago

    Anthony: because that’s how all legislation, and contracts in general, get done. It is unfortunate, I agree, but it’s the basis of negotiation. Senator A will not allow Senator B to get funding unless A also gets funding. It’s why so many unrelated things get lumped together, and it’s why a line-item veto power would completely nullify Congress and give the President WAAAAY too much power. Yes, Cons, I don’t want the President to be all-powerful, not even this one.