I think over the coming months we will hear a lot of talk about Congressional earmarks and pork barrel spending. The newly elected representatives are entering this Congress, many with the promise to cut wasteful spending. It will be interesting to see how they balance those promises against the natural desire to siphon federal dollars to their district. Even President Obama is now on board saying we shouldn't have earmarks. Slightly different then his position a year ago and vastly different from the $740 million in earmarks he had attempted to secure as a US senator (NY Times, March 14, 2008). According to the article he had about a 30% success rate.
I have heard some, like Rand Paul, are already "clarifying" what they meant when they promised to not insert earmarks. What the candidate meant to say was he wouldn't support earmarks that were added to the bill after it went to conference. He would though put in projects that were good for his State, as long as the whole subcommittee got to share the blame. Sounds like good old politics where you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours is the flavor of the day. Nice to know there are some constants, even with Republicans.
Don't get me wrong, earmarks can be important. They can bring federal dollars into areas, or projects that can greatly improve the lives of the people in that area. I would bet for every outrageous story of earmark spending you hear there is at least two of real value to the community. The problem is when we do this we are spending dollars the nation does not have.
Since everyone agrees we shouldn't raise taxes, I am a little unclear about how everyone thinks we should pay for all this?
1 comment:
By pawning it off on our grandchildren of course.
Post a Comment