But this still isn't saying what you want it to say. What this is saying that the congress allocates discretionary funds to a specific agency and provides the agency with suggestions on how to spend the money. The agency is not required to spend the money in that fashion despite the fact that congress has shown it's intent.

If the agency doesn't spend the money in that fashion, then in the future congress may provide a hard earmark for the money.

This is NOT avoiding a vote on the issue. The full congress has to vote on allotting the discretionary funds. This stuff is still voted on despite your previously false claims.

__________________

Congress votes on the amount, but are clueless at to HOW that amount gets spent...Which is the whole point...

Congress gets a bill thrown at them that says "The Agricultural Department needs $40 billion"...Let's say Congress passes it...

AFTER that's passed, Congress a-holes run up to the committees(NOT the full houses) and say "I want $200,000 of that $40 billion to go to my good friends at Dung Inc., located in my home state, so they can research beetles."...The committees (NOT the full houses) collect all of the "requests" and sends them to the Agricultural Department.

Are they REQUIRED to adhere to the requests?...NO...

But if they don't, they run the risk of having all of those Congress a-holes that submitted the soft earmarks getting mad at the department and approving a bill the following year for $5 dollars and some lint...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

I'm still waiting for your point. So congress reduces the amount of discretionary spending, wouldn't that be a good thing? It equates ACCOUNTABILITY.

Your entire point was that Obama's add-ons come after the fact, but the sources dispute that. Otherwise, it wouldn't be able to be attributed to Obama... The reason we know about Obama's pork is because he PUT IT IN THE BILL TO BE VOTED ON. You still have yet to tag Obama with this grievous thing you are crying about.

__________________

Absolutely NOT...

Do you think (in the case I've shown) that the Agricultural Department WANTS "discretionary spending" cut?...

Of course not...That's why they play along...

It would take 1 of 2 things to happen for this practice to stop...

1) The heads of certain departments deny the softmark requests...That will never happen because if they did, they'll never see a dime again...

2) Congress restricts itself...Remember...It was Nancy Pelosi who said this was going to be "the most ethical Congress" ever...

I'll go back to a link I've recently shown...

Depending on the individual Congress a-hole, they can actually be PROUD of bringing home the bacon in this manner and sleep soundly knowing the public knows what they did...

They WANT their district or State to see how they "helped the community" by bringing in these projects...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

But you still have yet to prove several key arguments.

1. The Obama earmarks were soft.
2. That congress doesn't vote to supply money to these programs.
3. That earmarks are bad.

Public earmarks are hard earmarks according to your sources. That means they are in the bill. Soft earmarks, of which you have been unable to show evidence Obama has partaken or McCain has not, are on the sly so the congressman wouldn't get credit in his or her home district. In addition, congressmen know what is going on so they know what happens when discretionary money is allocated. Ending discretionary money creates accountability and puts it on the elected official. It takes the spending power out of the agency. Isn't that what we want? Less control by individuals who aren't publicly accountable? This means that every project will essentially be pork and will be voted on, and the agencies are left to their expertise... how best to carry out the project that was voted on and approved.

__________________