The key, of course, is for the earmarking process to be open and transparent—just the way Senator Lugar and others advocate.
It's fairly common practice these days for lawmakers to make public their earmark proposals on their congressional websites, there for any interested taxpayers to see.
The alternative, of course, is to abandon earmarks, leaving more funding decisions to the managers of programs in the federal agencies.
To be fair, most such managers with such authority seek to use it wisely, often making their decisions based on strenuous competitive programs, or by expert peer-review.
Lugar calls such an approach nothing less than a surrender of constitutional authority.
The administrative approach also centralizes power in Washington, which I thought, is what the tea party people were against.
To my mind, however honestly and rigorously federal managers seek to apportion funding, they aren't as directly accountable to the taxpayer as members of Congress are through direct election.
Earmark opponents, of course, love to point to the more ridiculous earmarks, such as the famous "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska, which carried a price tag of nearly $400 million.
No decision-making ever carried out by human beings, any human beings, is, frankly, without some fault.
In the end, though, that Alaska bridge earmark couldn't stand up to the smell test and Congress pulled its funding. And isn't that what accountability is supposed to be about?
So let's have a grand debate about the federal budget. But let's forget this foolishness about blaming earmarks, which actually are the most constitutional means of dividing up whatever size federal pie we end up having.
Article comments
1 - Doug Hunter
The best practice is to let states pay for their own infrastructure. What you essentially have with earmarks is taxation without representation. Alaskan representatives building a bridge to nowhere do not represent me, yet my state must pay taxes like everyone else to fund their boondoggle. A better system would be letting Alaskans decide whether they want to pay for a bridge to nowhere with their own funds. I think you'd get alot less waste that way.
2 - Doug Hunter
Give the money formerly spent on earmarks as block grants to states relative to how much they contribute in taxes and let them spend it as they see fit.
3 - Boeke
Republicans were quite happy to use earmarks during the Bush administration.
4 - Andy Marsh
Who gives a fuck what republicans did under Bush and what does it have to do with anything that's happening now?
That's easily the MOST childish argument possible. He did it why can't I? Did that crap work with your mommy too?
5 - Boeke
True. I just brought it up to point out how desperate the R's are to find issues they could seem more virtuous about.
6 - Baronius
Antabuse doesn't cure alcoholism, but if you throw up every time you drink, you're just not going to hit the bottle the same way. Take away a congressman's power to direct federal money in the direction of his district, and you're going to reduce his urge to spend.
7 - Tommy Mack
Pop quiz? How was your library rebuilding funded? How about your VA hospital improvements?
Just asking.
(correct answer: 1848)
8 - Andy Marsh
VA hospitals are federal, libraries are local...that's apples and oranges.
9 - John
Republicans are cretins.