the battle over earmarks
I just thought this was interesting considering Bush's promise to veto bills based on number of earmarks. I really didnt think anyone would act on what he said, but apparently it's become a big deal. I almost wonder if the republicans are playing chicken. Perhaps they believe they wont get the majority they need for the moratorium, but they'll look good by trying. Or maybe I'm just cynical.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
It's a lot of fun to read thru budget items or read articles about earmark projects that sound really ridiculous (and there's plenty of them) and then support this supposed full ban on home-district appropriations, but then there are: "projects such as grants to local police and fire departments, money for health clinics and economic development projects, military housing, and funding for highway and airport construction." Gee, how horrible.
It is not the Federal Governments job to fund every project just to make that Congressman or Senator popular at home. Every little bit of pork adds to our debt that we cannot afford, for example, the $200 Million dollar bridge to nowhere. Maybe even Senator Clinton sponsoring a Woodstock Museum, good use of money? Everyone always wants to cut spending, just not for their district, just like everyone wants to close military bases, but once again not in their district.
No of course it's not their job to make congressmen popular, but I don't personally believe that all spending is inherently bad just because one if its effects is to make congressmen popular, and there is at least some element of stifling some good spending as a means to stop the bad. And it is out of control, so banning it would be worth trying at least, I'm just not sure that it will have the desired or completely positive (in the broad sense) effect that people imagine. This is why you chose to single out the bridge to nowhere or the Woodstock Museum, because if you really considered "every little bit of pork" to be equally "bad" then it would make absolutely no difference what the money was spent on. It's been a long time - about 8 years, I'd guess - since the gov't has shown any interest in shrinking the debt. I guess it's okay to run huge deficits up as long as a Republican is in the White House...but now that that will likely be over, let's clean it all up, right?
Post a Comment