Talk:Earmarking

This is a good article. I am so proud of youm all! 71.87.114.38 03:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the article is about America, so I propose to split off several sections into Earmark (USA). --Uncle Ed 19:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I Agree, With the talk of eliminating earmarking in the state of the Union Address and the continued action that will take place in response it would be better to split them up now. Ryanx7 20:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that two articles should be produced in order to differentiate between earmarks in Congressional matters and those of Public finance

The "Earmarks in public finance" bit seems to refer to

, which is already a separate article. I've never heard "earmarking" used in this sense, but if it is, then what's needed is:

• delete the "Earmarks in public finance" and intro para from this article
• Add a
  Hypothecation
  .
• Add a note at
  Hypothecation
  that it's also called "earmarking"; and provide a source, cos I've never heard it called that.
• recast the start of "Earmarks in US spending legislation" into an intro for the article. The term seems to be U.S. specific, There is a universal criticism of elected representatives bribing their local voters with cash cows, but that really falls under Pork barrel rather than "earmark", which is more specific and technical, as the competing definitions show. jnestorius^(talk) 03:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with jnestorius's suggestion. --Yksin 18:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of U.S. appropriations earmarking is so large (including controversies over definitions, Ethics issues, and separation of powers issues) that a separate listing is needed. This would differentiate it from other discussions of earmarking that are not as controversial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Broktoon (talk • contribs) 22:47, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

There isn't enough content here to mandate a split. I see one section that is not USA related. If the articles were split there wouldn't be enough content to warrant the second article. SB (talk) 21:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pork barrel spending is equated to earmarking in the article on Pork barrel spending. The two terms are also very widely regarded as being the same throughout public discourse, something that could be easily cited. Shouldn't it follow that there would be a mention/link to it in this article, if nothing else, for the sake of consistency? Kellenwright (talk) 22:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I needed to do a report, and I at least expected to see something about the history of earmarks in the U.S.. I also noticed this statement had been striken from the article.

"Additionally, with the power of earmarks, the Appropriations Committees in Congress become extremely powerful and coveted positions, with control over the earmarks allowed into legislation^{[citation needed]}."

I remember hearing in high school, from my American Government teacher, about how the Chair of the House Appropriations Committee, who hailed from East Ky, used the power of his position to direct millions of dollars in earmarks for public highways in the region. I don't immediately recall what his name was, but a cursory investigation into past Appropriations Committee chairs would pull up the answer very quickly. The point is that his power is evidence for the above statement, among many, many others, and yet it was removed. It was an inexcusable act to remove that information from the article.

And looking at the situation at hand in this article... oh dear, such a vital argument whether to keep or to split. Someone just do it already. This consensus reality crap may sound great on paper, but in practice it is failing in a big way, and this article is just one example of the reason why. Tcaudilllg (talk) 23:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see your views on splitting the earmark article to help limit the two definitions, but I agree with the prior view of how the new article's name 'Earmark USA' is referring to how only the U.S. is using this term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.81.121 (talk) 02:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't split. The article isn't long enough to need splitting. The U.S. and general sections are both pretty skimpy. The first priority should be to expand and improve the overall content. If both aspects of the article are suitably augmented, then a split might be in order. JamesMLane t c 18:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]