However, does that mean the taxpayers from Ohio should help pay for it?
That is where I disagree with a federal earmark. This burden is for Los Angelinos to fix. If we choose to spend our tax dollars in other areas, that is our choice.

A parapharase of a quote I recently heard:
We aren’t truly free until we can be comfortable with allowing people to bear the consequences of their own bad decisions. And not feel that it is our obligation to fix it for them.

Sometimes an earmark can be that some people think a problem is important to them, but it might not rate out in a panel based on who composes the panel and their views of what is important, plus how good the particular proposal is technically at studying the topic.

My experience has been that there is “good pork” and “bad pork” and to some extent “pork is in the eyes of the beholder.” This is true regardless of whether it is science or infrastructure or any other porky object.

My observation is that the criticism about these earmarks is framed badly. The frame is “Isn’t this item stupid? Let’s cut it.” When targeted against science line items, this frame makes the critic appear anti-science. With this frame coming out from mostly Republican mouths of late, it gives ammo to those wishing to perpetuate the war on science rhetoric.

The framing of earmark criticism should be along the lines of “Why is this here?” “Why couldn’t this be awarded through competitive review?” That frame can be applied to individual items, and depending on the presence (or absence) of a pattern to the earmarks, could be used to criticize earmarks in general.

I maintain that a more useful earmarking criticism would be to confront the process rather than individual earmarks. The criticism of science earmarks also makes it too easy to paint the criticizers as anti-science. That particular tactic I find counterproductive, and was the motivation behind the title of the post.

The fact is we should have a limited budget, therefore spending should be prioritized. Is all science spending justified in the long grand scheme of things? I think not. And that is what Proxmire, Jundal, et al are pointing out, not all good things should be funded. And this, David, is where your analysis falls short.

Prioritizing is not not anti-science, it’s fiscal restraint.

Unfortunately, there’s not enough restraint in either party.

This week the largest tax increase in history has been proposed based on the word of scientists working in a political organization. The science used to justify a tax on carbon has yet to be independently validated. Also this week the most publicized climate scientist in the country has called for civil disobedience to advance a political cause.

If we want people to be more supportive of science, we first need to restore the credibility of scientists.

Well at least politicians are still a bunch of bums.

It just depends upon who is in power.

I agree with Jim Clarke about the fiddling by our “leaders,” while the Nation goes up in smoke.