David Prather defends earmarks
2008 February 7
Not really surprising, but Huntsville Times editorial page writer David Prather defends congressional earmarks. His column demonstrates that he has absolutely no idea why one would consider earmarks - pork – objectionable. I wish I had more time to list my objections, but I’ll be brief and I’m sure I’ll forget a few:
- It’s not the money. The earmarks themselves are a tiny fraction of the budget, but they have a multiplying effect. Pet projects can encourage congressmen to vote for otherwise bloated or offensive legislation. I personally believe that earmarks have played a key roll in mollifying opposition to the Iraq War in Congress. Some lawmakers might have opposed the war, but earmark sweeteners in their districts cajoled them into continually voting in favor of the war (see next objection as to why).
- Taxpayers should not be paying premiums for incumbency insurance. People like Shelby use pork projects – paid for with our tax dollars – to get free, positive press. This is my biggest objection. I find it appalling the way legislators use earmarks as a way of securing both future elections and their legacy, often in the face of an otherwise dismal record.
- They are not openly debated or subject to any reasonable scrutiny. This results in spending on wasteful projects and other non-essential projects that are not worthy of scarce federal dollars and would not withstand debate.
- Very few earmarks are spent on what can be considered a federal issue. Prather lists the TVA, which at least was a multi-state, and therefore federal, endeavor. I wonder why he didn’t list off things like parking decks as justifiable earmarks? Because the federal government should not be paying one thin nickel on local projects!
Feel free to chime in with more.
Print This Post
Trackbacks and Pingbacks