“The best of my ability. . .”

Any time I hear a politician say “I have to lead first by example…” I quickly prepare myself for the smelly load that is heading down the chute. The latest load of feces oozing down that chute comes from Mitch McConnell when speaking about spending earmarks.

A senator, when asked to defend his use of earmarks after admitting they are outrageous, says he doesn’t have to.

These guys have become so emboldened by the public’s lack of willingness to do anything about their actions that they can actually speak publicly about how earmark spending is an outrage and then walk into chambers and load up any available bill with millions in earmarks.

They have become quite proficient in the use of political double-speak in order to avoid answering embarrassing questions. This is all the proof necessary to show how little respect politicians have for the voting public.

That same senator when repeatedly asked by another reporter if he was wrong for asking for millions in earmarks states that he has tried to answer to the best of his ability.

The way I see it, if truth is not a part of the ‘best of his ability’ then he should not be an elected representative.

The Girl Can’t Help It

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.

Earmarking is a drive up ATM

Do you know what an earmark is? A member of Congress submits a request for money to fund a pet project by attaching the request to some bill, any bill, that is up for vote. The bill does not have to be related to the request. Does the bill have to be approved? I haven’t been able to get an answer to that question.

This latest method of requesting funds has become very popular over the last couple of years due to the fact that the House Appropriations Committee, who is tasked with determining what federal programs should receive funding, and how much they should get, has become so overburdened with requests and oversight duties that it is quicker and easier, and more likely assured, for Congress members to get their money using this new method. Because there are so many earmark requests, over 30,000 last year, many of them are granted without any oversight and without any follow-up as to whether or not the money was spent as declared.

This is like a family with 535 children, all repeatedly asking Dad for money. Dad becomes overwhelmed with the children’s demands that out of pure exasperation, he gives in and lets them all have whatever they want.

The bottle-neck between requests for money and the receiving of that money has been successfully bypassed by the use of earmarks.

Is the money well-spent? Come on, this is the U.S. Congress we’re talking about here. Nobody other than the recipients of these funds knows, and they most likely don’t know either.

And just who are the recipients? Lobbyists, special interest groups, politicians families? The biggest benefactors are the politicians requesting the funds and trading them for future votes.

Why is this bleeding of our tax dollars allowed to continue? Because the very people who benefit from this system are the ones who vote on its existence. What a marvelous system we have here.

Shouldn’t the spending of our tax dollars be scrutinized to validate the merit of a project? Is there verification of who is actually receiving these funds and that the funds are being spent as requested? Are we certain that our tax dollars are not being frivolously or unnecessarily spent on personal projects?

In the banking world, depositors money is spent to benefit the banking establishment, usually to cover loans and for capital investment. The use of that money is approved by a board of directors or some other appropriate committee. But these are private businesses. In the case of congress, the taxpayers are the board of directors. Sure we send representatives to speak for us but sometimes a Randy Cunningham gets involved. Sometimes a Ted Stevens gets involved. Congress has the money to spend because federal law says we have to give it to them, and then they get to decide who gets it based on what, seniority or merit or who scratched who’s back?

Last year, Congress approved more than $18 billion in spending through earmark requests. This may not sound like very much money compared to the projected 2009 budget of $3.1 trillion dollars, but where is our share?

I would like to get onboard this gravy train. Where do I signup to get money to study how congress spends our money. I want an earmark to get funding to educate people on why changing our driving habits will help conserve what fossil fuel resources we have left. I want money to fund a program that would re-direct our tax dollars to a better health care system, fully funded daycare for single working parents, beef up our social security system, give all teachers a huge raise, repair our dilapidated infrastructure. But most of all I want money to go back to the common taxpayer. You know who I’m talking about. The people who fund these projects while struggling to pay their monthly bills and put decent, healthy meals on their families tables.