Mark Schmitt makes a good case for it, on purely partisan grounds.
Mark Schmitt makes a good case, on purely partisan grounds. One of the few things a minority-party legislator can do is bring home the bacon. A “no-earmarks” rule would eliminate that.
One thing he doesn’t note: the Administration always has the capacity to steer particular expenditures to particular districts. So a “no-earmarks” rule would actually strengthen the hand of Obama in negotiating with Congressional Democrats, while allowing him to do as much incumbent protection for the good guys as he wants to do.
Talk about jiu-jitsu! If Obama proposes it, the Republicans have to vote for it. The problem is with the Democratic barons on the Hill.
Author: Mark Kleiman
Professor of Public Policy at the NYU Marron Institute for Urban Management and editor of the Journal of Drug Policy Analysis. Teaches about the methods of policy analysis about drug abuse control and crime control policy, working out the implications of two principles: that swift and certain sanctions don't have to be severe to be effective, and that well-designed threats usually don't have to be carried out.
Books:
Drugs and Drug Policy: What Everyone Needs to Know (with Jonathan Caulkins and Angela Hawken)
When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment (Princeton, 2009; named one of the "books of the year" by The Economist
Against Excess: Drug Policy for Results (Basic, 1993)
Marijuana: Costs of Abuse, Costs of Control (Greenwood, 1989)
UCLA Homepage
Curriculum Vitae
Contact: Markarkleiman-at-gmail.com
View all posts by Mark Kleiman