Back in 2008 Michelle Bachmann signed the Club for Growth’s ‘No Earmark’ pledge. Her adherence lasted as long as an ice cream cone in the hot sun.
According to Legistorm, Bachmann has requested 7 earmarks in Fiscal Year 2008 costing tax payers a total of $3,767,600. Some examples:
- $94,000 for Sheriffs Youth Program of MN
- $335,000 for Equipment Acquisition for Northland Medical Center
- $803,000 for Replacement Small Buses, St. Cloud Metro Bus
It would be easy to jump on this obvious renege of a promise by saying something like ‘typical republican’. The dishonesty of making that statement would be that democrats have done the exact same thing.
This illustrates the problematic weakness we humans have with money. If the money is there for the taking, almost every person will take it.
Politicians are especially susceptible to the allure of what I am sure they see as ‘free money’ because they have the power to direct the money towards a group of people who have the power to return the favor by keeping them in political office.
The debate surrounding earmarks by those of us outside the loop, is that so much of this ‘free money’ goes to ridiculous, even frivolous uses.
Newsmax.com lists 10 spending bill boondoggles that illustrates atrocious fiscal mismanagement and a simple lack of communication and foresight. This is just a small sampling, there are many, many more.
Money used for a youth program, or used to purchase equipment for a hospital, or to replace buses may not be considered a true waste of money to some but it is a colossal waste according to another group.
The inherent problem with earmarks, is not so much whether it is considered ‘pork’, it’s that the money can be so unfairly and disproportionately directed to one group over another.
Money for these projects could very well be needed. The major problem comes when money is allotted to studying, for example, the sex life of dolphins over money for cancer research equipment at Johns Hopkins Hospitals. Or to replace fishing boats lost during Hurricane Katrina to help recover a devastated coastal economy.
Taking money away from more worthy projects is definitely wrong. But how do we prioritize spending? This is the job that falls to Congress and so far they are not doing a very good job.
In the latest spending budget bill for next year, close to eight thousand earmarks were added. If these so-called pet projects create jobs or otherwise boost the economy, what’s so wrong with that?
To put it another way: How is it that spending American tax dollars on Americans is wasteful and irresponsible but spending trillions on an illegal war is sound fiscal policy?
I am not trying to let Ms. Bachmann off the hook here. She chose to put herself squarely in the path of hypocrisy by pledging not to do exactly what she did. That is on her alone.
We simply need a better system of prioritizing where our tax dollars should be spent.
No comments:
Post a Comment