During his campaign for President, Barack Obama argued that earmarks account for a mere "0.5% of the total federal budget," so eliminating earmarks would not solve the problem.
What an attitude, I say.
Enter the fiscal watchdog group, "Citizens Against Government Waste's" and thier latest annual "Pig Book." Okay, I know what you're gonna say, "Pig Book? How friggin' childish." And, I agree, but, I can't change that now. Get this, though: CAGW found $16.5 billion, yes BILLION in congressional earmarks that was approved in the 2010 fiscal year. Wuh-wuh WHAT??
Believe it or not, that's good news. How, you ask? Last week Congress has approved $700 billion for the bank bailout, $862 billion for the stimulus, a $3.6 trillion budget and a $1.4 trillion deficit. And, here's the GOOD NEWS: Earmarks are reduced from fiscal year 2009. Ahh, good news indeed!
So, the House Republican Conference countered by pledging not to request earmarks for one year, and, well, the Democrats considered this request. Then rejected it.
Still, the Senate has no restrictions on earmarks. The Senate, you may recall, appropriated more than $200 million for Alaska's infamous "Bridge to Nowhere."
During the 2008 campaign, Obama pledged to reduce earmarks to less than $7.8 billion, despite budgeting a whopping $3.6 trillion in federal spending this year.
Am I wrong to think that Obama is just plain wrong that $16.5 billion is such a paltry sum that it does not make a difference?
In my humble opinion, the problem is that if Washington cannot cut pet projects, then Washington cannot cut anything. If Washington cannot tell the paper industry to pay for its own "wood utilization research," then Washington cannot say no to any special interest group. And, if Obama's cronies can appropriate 35 anonymous projects worth $6 billion in the 2010 Defense Appropriations Act despite new rules that are supposed to deliver complete transparency, then the rules mean nothing. Where is my transparency, Mr. Obama? You promised me this!
To me, earmarks are unworthy projects that deserve no money, no appropriation, no attention because they bypass the competitive process. But even if there is such a thing as a good earmark, the price invariably is all the other earmarks that are not good.
Unfortunately, that's a price Congress has been all too willing to pay -- because, well, Congress doesn't have to pay it.
Ahh, there's the rub!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
OK, I know this is way old, but I just want to say that 16 billion i about as much as California's deficit, so yes, it is, relatively speaking, a paltry sum.
ReplyDeleteBut yes, I agree that earmarks are usually crap pushed by lobbyists, such as the "Children's Wooden Arrow" fund.