Comments on: The Latest Attempt To Kill Earmarks

By: J. Ewing

J. Ewing — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 17:41:07 +0000

You are correct in the general sense. A closer examination, however, would find, IMHO, that they are already so far “afoul” and afield from their Constitutional authority that most of these earmarks, and quite possibly the process itself, would not pass Constitutional muster. Now getting someone to succeed at trial, with a bunch of liberal judges, is another matter. So yes, my approach is probably “in theory.”

I keep hoping some brave group will sue to force retraction of the bailout.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 17:02:16 +0000

Well in theory I agree with your approach but there is a bit of a caveat that must be respected. Constitutionally Congress has the “power of the purse”, so to speak. So any restriction upon their ability to set budgets and restricting their ability to fund programs is likely to come afoul of constitutional questions.

By: J. Ewing

J. Ewing — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 16:56:40 +0000

I think the “spent anyway” argument can be argued either way. I am of the opinion that, first of all, the money probably shouldn’t be spent at all, like in Lakeville. But I also happen to believe that Agency X wouldn’t be getting A dollars unless somebody had already figured out how much of it was to be carved out for bacon.

True earmark reform has to start with eliminating the process of “airdropping” them into the budget, with no review and no vote. It then has to progress to the notion that NOBODY gets to put a special designation into the budget– basically insuring that every dollar spent must be by a competitive bid, and on projects that compete on merit. Finally, we have to come to the point that the federal government ceases funding of local projects altogether, respecting the 10th amendment and bringing the responsibility for taxing and spending back down to local governments where it belongs. Look how much chin music is expended justifying LRT because we can “get federal money for it.” Where do people think “federal money” comes FROM?

By: Kevin

Kevin — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 14:01:43 +0000

Well it IS money that would be spent anyway. All an earmark is really is the legislature saying “Heh Agency X, we’re giving you a budget of A dollars. HOWEVER, of that B dollars, you must use C dollars of it for project D”.

So it was already going to be spent by the agency, the legislators are just directing them where.

Although your point about a bus station in Lakeville is well taken.

By: J. Ewing

J. Ewing — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 13:31:20 +0000

I see more than a bit of corruption here. To ban contributions (look at how well McCain-Feingold has worked) from companies that have received earmark money is backwards. The real corruption occurs in taking the money BEFORE the earmark is made.

The real problem is that it ISN’T “money that would be spent anyway.” Just because Congressman Oldfogey gets to the trough first, doesn’t mean Congressman Newkid doesn’t still need some bacon of his own to bring home, or that Newkid’s project doesn’t have more merit and gets funded anyway, or next year. Even worse, since when is it the job of the federal government to fund a bus station for Lakeville, Minnesota? Seems to me that the folks in Lakeville who don’t like waiting for the bus in 40-mph wind-driven sleet might want to pony up for their own?