Maybe Congress didn't get the message
The Senate voted to continue allowing earmarks in the next session of Congress, which makes us think perhaps some of our elected representatives are wearing soundproof earmuffs.
Word didn’t get through to the majority of the senators yet that voters are fed up with government spending, growing deficits and political cronyism.
Sure, we know that earmarks are a drop in the bucket when compared to the total amount of wasteful, irresponsible spending done by Congress each year, but that’s not the point.
We ALSO know that earmarking is a form of political patronage that allows politicians to reward their friends and buy votes from their enemies. If a congressman or senator can tuck a couple-hundred thousand-dollar project in a bill, it just might make him popular back home, right? And if it’s a couple million dollars, so much the better, right?
Wrong.
This nonsense has to stop.
Rep. Denny Rehberg got the message, but his colleagues in the Senate did not. Sens. Max Baucus and Jon Tester both voted to keep earmarks alive. In the case of Sen. Tester, that is particularly galling. Back when he was running for office he said, “I don’t support earmarks, period.” But now that he can use them himself, they seem to be all right.
Sen. Baucus defended his own vote by quoting Rep. Rehberg’s words from 2009 to shame him. Rehberg said then, “Earmarks are not the problem. They direct money that already exists within the program to a particular area, because who knows their district more than we do?”
Rehberg was wrong then, but he is right now. Just because a senator or congressman knows his district doesn’t mean he should be able to divert money there on his own say-so. Appropriations should be based on a thorough examination of their worth by the entire Congress.
Lastly, don’t be misled by those who argue that earmarks represent a paltry sum compared to the vast federal budget. They are not only used to buy votes back home; they are also used to buy votes in Congress.
Here’s how it works. If the president needs to pass a piece of legislation that costs $200 billion, and he knows he faces an uphill fight, he can arrange for his party leaders to line the bill with earmarks, all of which represent one “yes” vote from a senator or congressman who know he can tell the folks back home he delivered the bacon.
The earmarks might only add up to a half-billion dollars themselves, but each one represents another vote for the $200 billion total package. Sorry, but that’s not a drop in the bucket.
Earmarks are wrong. No matter how transparent they are, they still result in a corrupt system of vote-buying and political patronage. And they waste money, too.
HEY, CONGRESS, CAN YOU HEAR US NOW?