Editor s note: This is an opinion column. The writer, of Morristown, is director emerita of the Center for Negotiation and Conflict Resolution, and a member of the graduate faculty at the Edward J. Bloustein School. She can be reached at lstamato@ejb.rutgers.edu.
The disabling impasse that plagues Congress has prompted pundits, policy wonks and even the editors of the New York Times to support a return to earmarking in order to advance needed legislation.
The move should be roundly rejected. Earmarking is not, and never was, good public policy.
Earmarks, or, as some prefer, âfederal directed spending,â are funds awarded outside the ordinary budget process to favored projects in home districts by well-situated members of Congress.
at some of the news. it s been announced that the trump administration is planning to divert hundreds of millions of dollars in homeland security funds to ramp up security at our southern border. they are going to reprogram the money. brian: democrats are blasting the move calling it cruel and backwards. ainsley: ellison barber joins us live from the white house with why dhs says the move is necessary. good morning, ellison. the department of homeland security notified congress about this plan last month. the 30-day period for innovation is set to end on sunday. the department of homeland security says it intends to reprogram and transfer $116 million to fund ice single adult detention beds and transportation. and to transfer $155 million to establish and operate temporary immigration hearing facilities along the southwest border. $271 million in all over 150 million coming from fema s disaster relief fund. this as a major storm heads
debate. ainsley: gut check time. they have to have at least 2% in the major polls. they have to have x amount of dollars. it s beading people out. steve: it s weeding a lot of them out. right now only 10 are in. we will keep you posted on that. ainsley: today is the last day. steve: before politics, let s talk a little bit about what the administration is doing. the trump administration is debating more than hundreds of millions of dollars in homeland security funds to ramp up security at our southern border. brian: do they have a choice? democrats are blasting the move, calling it meanwhile schumer directly cruel and backwards. ainsley: griff jenkins joins us live as hurricane dorian is bearing down on puerto rico. lots to talk about. griff: lots to talk about. fight on our hand. speaker pelosi is blasting the moving of 271 million like fema and coast guard. she says this. stealing from appropriate funds is always unacceptable but to pick the pockets of disaster relief funding to
military is very affected, we may use the military for parts of it, homeland security is very affected. . we may in addition to the 5.6, we will use homeland security funds. so we have things happening in addition to the 5.6 but we have to get a structure built. reporter: was daca part of the discussion? thank you, mr. president. to follow up on that question, with respect to the daca program, were you discussing that in terms of a pathway to citizenship being included as part of an end to the partial sh shutdown. we discussed this mythical number, 25 billion, but only 2 billion up front. the rest of it the government couldn t guarantee. you remember those discussions. but where it really ened wded w when the judge ruled against and
parts of it. homeland security obviously is very affected. we may in addition to the 5.6, we will use homeland security funds. so we have things happening in addition to the 5.6. we have to get a structure built. was daca part of the discussion? a follow up. go ahead. thank you, mr. president. to follow up. when with respect to the daca program, were you discussing that in terms of a pathway to citizenship and an end to the partial government shut down? we discussed it a long time ago when you remember. that s when they had this number of $25 billion. actually, it was $25 billion but $1 billion up front. we talked $2 billion, 1.5 billion. the rest of it the government couldn t guarantee because it s not set up to guarantee. you remember those discussions. where it ended is when the judge ruled against. it was i said as soon as that happened, that was a shocking