Wikipedia defines "earmark" as a budgetary provision that "directs funds to a specific recipient while circumventing the merit-based or [competitive] allocation process." An earmark is a taxpayer-funded goodie bestowed on a congressman's constituent, the sort of crony willing to contribute to the bestower's next election campaign in return.
Quid pro quo, pay-for-play, bribery. Whatever you call it, there's darn good reason why political leaders who fight corruption have fought to end earmarks.
Congressional Republicans imposed a ban on earmarks in 2011 to show that they were anti-corruption. So why relapse? Well, "the time is right," according to GOP Representative John Culberson, for Congress to prove it can use earmarks responsibly. His bad argument is that the "excesses" of a decade ago were committed by "knuckleheads [who] went overboard."
Somebody alert Culberson to the fact that many of the same knuckleheads are still in office. Ahem. Congress is not yet term-limited, remember?
The more basic point is that earmarks are by nature corrosive of sound government. President Trump's only metric is apparently "getting [things] done" as opposed to obstructionism, preferring "the great friendliness" when we had earmarks. Sure, stuff got done — a lot more spending, a lot more bad stuff.
To the extent they're gone, earmarks should stay gone. The only appropriate action is to make it even harder to bring them back.
This is Common Sense. I'm Paul Jacob.
------------------
Paul Jacob is author of Common Sense which provides daily commentary about the issues impacting America and about the citizens who are doing something about them. He is also President of the Liberty Initiative Fund (LIFe) as well as Citizens in Charge Foundation. Jacobs is a contributing author on the ARRA News Service.
Tags: Earmark, This Bad Argument, Paul Jacob, Common Sense To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Source
No comments:
Post a Comment