Earmarks – There’s a better way to bring home the bacon
It is hard to read this NY Times article about appropriations and earmarks and not get at least a little agitated.
The bi-partisan collusion to manipulate the allocation of public funds is deep in the DNA of any legislature. Gaining control of the treasury is essentially the point of winning office. The Blue Dogs have a tough fight ahead of them. Unless they can change the geometry of the problem.
Instead of trying to stop earmarks perhaps we just alter the process. We have already heard about the idea of increasing transparency by requiring that all earmarks be identified by the sponsor. But how about this idea as well:
Consider giving each Representative a budget based on population so they can bring home the bacon without being covert about it. Then they become responsible for how they want to allocate it to their district, within some reasonable limits.
A further calculation could be based on how much federal money their district is already getting. If it is below, or above, average perhaps there is an adjustment to the pork budget for that Representative.
All of us get a little crazy when someone wants to take power away from us. And this approach allows us to gently reduce the corrupting influence on how our representatives vote on our behalf.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
9 Responses to “Earmarks – There’s a better way to bring home the bacon”
Um, you know that each representative represents approximately the same number of people, give or take a few hundred thousand for really low population states, right?
And that the pork issue is that money is transfered from wealthy districts (typically coastal, Blue) to poorer ones (rural, Southern, Red)?
So if each rep represents approx. the same number of people, the allocation would be the same — and the end goal (mitigating pork, mitigating corruption) would still be achieved.
It’s a great idea.
Maybe Common Cause or Public Campaign could help push this concept — after campaign finance is reformed.
The transfer of money from rich to poor districts may be one of the issues related to redistribution of government revenues.
But it seems to me that the more looming controversies are districts getting far more than their proportionate share and/or the use of that money for what most people might agree are not national priorities.
Sometimes an area of the country may need to get a disproportionate share of money as in the case of New Orleans. But, to me, this should be discussed and decided in an open deliberation. Not covertly bundled with hundreds of other dubious “investments”
My thought is that a relatively modest amount of money be distributed at the discretion of the legislator so that they can support projects that may fall below the radar of more meaningful public works.
Isn’t that the point of having local government?
It is; and it would be just fine with me for the federal govt to reduce taxes to do those big things that only it can do.
But the reality is that control of money is the essence of power and it would take an unimaginable level of alignment for the Congress to give that up.
Many of us hoped, and assumed, that the Republican take over of DC was our best hope to make our government efficient. But they betrayed us, and an entire generation has to lower our expectations of what is possible.
You won’t see a major realignment in the current political environment towards fiscal responsibility unless either the Democrats or Republicans feel the heat from a 3rd party.
Right now we are stuck with two parties that interested in securing more and more power. The only choice we have now is who gets to exercise this growing power.
Right now I can’t help but feel like anyone but the Republicans is a good choice. As a group the Republicans just don’t have any upside.
Before Reagan ended it, there used to be a federal program of giving money to states or cities. I don’t remember what it was based on – population, I think – but it was a good system.
There’s always been some porkbarrelling. But I think you’ll find it was less egregious when there was still a set policy of grants to states/cities.
A lot of the “Reagan Revolution” has wound up biting us on our national ass. Just about all the chronic, serious underfunding of essential social infrastructure can be traced back to Reagan’s policies.
Bringing home the bacon is bipartisan.
The problem, as indicated by the NYT article isn’t even secrecy–it’s shamelessness.
I think the idea of giving each representative a set fund for earmarks has merit. At the very least we will have a handle on how much total money will be spent rather than this open ended, no limit, Federal credit card we have now. If a representative wanted to go further then there would have to be at least some justification, and a vote.