to earmark is human
by Paige Cram
Published: March 26, 2008
To earmark is human, but to practice fiscal responsibility in a time of impending economic crisis is divine. I guess it comes as no surprise that our government is run by men, not gods, but I have to admit I was a little disappointed at the overwhelming lack of support for the proposed earmark ban which was thoroughly defeated in the Senate last week. By a staggering vote of 71-29, nearly three-quarters of our United States senators essentially said to the American taxpayers, “It’s our money now, and we’ll do what we want with it.”
According to CNN, there were nearly $18 billion in earmarks last year. One could certainly argue that with a $3 trillion budget, that number is a mere drop in the bucket. One commentator on CNN argued last week that all this discussion of earmarks was simply a distraction because trying to fix the economy by getting rid of earmarks was like trying to fix the environment by eliminating bathroom nightlights.
Well, she may have had a point. I’m not going to try to argue that our economy would magically bounce back if we could only have that $18 billion back. But I do think that in the face of an absolutely astounding national debt, we should really avoid the attitude of “what’s a few billion more?”
According to the United States treasury, our current debt is over $9 trillion. That means that even if our country found a way to magically run itself on nothing but sunshine and water, while we all continued to pay taxes and our creditors suspended interest rates, it would still take us more than three years to get out of the red.
Which means we owe a heck of a lot of green.
Now I realize that not all earmarks are frivolous. Some provide extra funding and equipment for schools, hospitals and research. But many others are responsible for pet projects of the most trivial kind, often benefiting no one but the senator who proposed them. No wonder a one-year ban seemed so unappealing.
Thanks to the recent reform laws, we now know exactly who receives earmark funding and what it is for. All three presidential candidates voted in favor of the ban, while only one of them has a reputation for being a long-time opponent of the practice. For the democrats, there will be no beating John McCain on this issue. CNN states that Senator Obama received $98 million for Illinois in the 2008 fiscal year, and the information he made public shows over $300 million in requests that were never approved. Senator Clinton was awarded $342 million for the state of New York last year. She has yet to disclose how much she requested beyond that.
And they were two of only 29 “aye” votes. It really makes a voter wonder: did they only vote for the ban because they knew it wouldn’t pass? As an idealistic young democrat, I prefer to believe that they’ve heard the concern and outrage in the recently raised voices of their supporters, and they’ve decided to change their prodigal ways. They have both agreed to tighten their financial belts in the upcoming year. Whether or not they really meant it, they better be careful to follow through because there’s one god on the mountain who can’t wait to cry “hypocrisy!” And unfortunately for the Democrats, at least on this issue, John McCain’s record makes for a pretty nice pedestal.
—
(email this article or post to social network)
—
