On Earmarks
The Post recently ran a segment on earmarks. A number of notable political figures chimed in, including our friend and savoir, Ronny Paul. According to Paul, earmarks “account less than 2 percent of the spending bill just passed. And even if all earmarks were removed from the budget overall, no money would be saved. That money would instead go to the executive branch to spend as it sees fit. Congress has the power of the purse. It is the constitutional responsibility of members to earmark, or designate, where funds should go, rather than to simply deliver a lump sum to the president.” In other words, they aren’t that big of a deal, and can actually serve a purpose.
Earmarks encourage transparency, establishing a clear line-of-site between government spending and services to citizens. For example, a bill could give the State of Maryland $50 million for environmental restoration. Or, an earmark could allocate $10 million to irrigation research, $10 to marshland preservation, and another $30 million for returning oysters to the Chesapeake Bay. We, as citizens, would know what we’re getting for our dollar.
There has been a long-standing initiative in government to account for every dollar spent. Instead of distributing lump sums, Congress should allocate spending toward “line items,” or individual projects with clearly defined scope. Whether we call them projects or earmarks, the public should not scream every time a “pet project” is initiated – it’d be great if the entire federal budget was comprised of pet projects.
Earmarks encourage transparency, establishing a clear line-of-site between government spending and services to citizens. For example, a bill could give the State of Maryland $50 million for environmental restoration. Or, an earmark could allocate $10 million to irrigation research, $10 to marshland preservation, and another $30 million for returning oysters to the Chesapeake Bay. We, as citizens, would know what we’re getting for our dollar.
There has been a long-standing initiative in government to account for every dollar spent. Instead of distributing lump sums, Congress should allocate spending toward “line items,” or individual projects with clearly defined scope. Whether we call them projects or earmarks, the public should not scream every time a “pet project” is initiated – it’d be great if the entire federal budget was comprised of pet projects.
posted by Dr. Cook at 6:09 AM
1 Comments:
(aka Mr. Lee)
By that logic ("they aren’t that big of a deal, and can actually serve a purpose"), the bonuses paid to AIG executives are just as unobjectionable. Leaving aside the legal problems of effectively nullifying contracts, the AIG bonuses were a tiny portion of the total stimulus money received and certainly served a purpose; as I understand it, they were retention bonuses for the most part, not performance-based bonuses.
I'd be interested to hear your opinion on that topic.
The problem with earmarks is not their existence per se, but (naturally) when they are abused. The Robert C. Byrd State of West Virginia and the Ted Stevens Memorial Bridge to Nowhere dramatically illustrate how senior lawmakers are able to direct funds to their constituencies without regard for anything but their seniority and political power. Surely those criteria should not be decisive in spending federal money.
Public requests for needed causes are certainly a good idea. But what to do about Defense Department contracts going to companies that set up offices in Johnstown, PA? Or the famed highway interchange in Florida inserted by Don Young *after* the bill had been approved by the House and Senate? These are not transparent by any sense of the word.
Post a Comment
<< Home