The Good and Bad of Earmarks

Everyone will read this and find something to disagree with. That is because I always have an opinion that falls into the middle ground. It sucks thinking with my eyes open.

I’ll start out saying that I love the idea that earmarks will be banned. I’d say something like, “Those pansies proposing it are putting a two year-expiration date on it!” except that I actually admire that. It is the right thing to do. It’s what should have been done with healthcare so when the system fails like Medicare and Social Security, we can just not renew it. So if this passes, we’ll have two years to see how no earmarks works. And if it’s fantastic, we can keep it.

I’m also pleased that we’ve heard none of this “Cut out earmarks by the year 2070” garbage like those idiots on the Debt Commission who will be praised by their grandchildren.

A few valid points have been brought up, however. The first is that earmarks total less than a half a percentage of the total budget. Hard to believe, but there the stats are. The second is that by taking away earmarks from Congress we give more spending power to the Executive branch. These are both issues that make me want to keep earmarks where they are.

Earmarks might be a decent check against wild Presidential waste, but as stated above, it’s less than one percent of the total budget. Considering that the current President has been appointing people withOUT the advice and consent of Congress, keeping some power might be in your best interest.

However, my final position is pulled by other considerations. What really needs to happen is that we should tell ALL our lawmakers to wake up and start doing their jobs. Congress, your job is to MAKE LAWS. Not spend money. Mr President, your job is to EXECUTE THOSE LAWS, which includes the money thing. So the ban on earmarks makes the most sense Constitutionally.

For everyone who is concerned about Presidential waste, read your American history and figure out that the treasury should NEVER be as big as it is. The opportunity for waste is greatly increased the further from the original intent we go. Principles of liberty don’t get old and die, they remain in force forever. Once earmarks have been taken out of Congress’s hands, the next step will to hire a President who will stay within his bounds and cut out the potential for waste. That will require a loss of power, but Congress is willing to do it, why shouldn’t the President?

Finally, I think the most important consideration is the unstated rule of Congress which is that if I can put earmarks that benefit you in my bill, you’ll vote for my bill no matter how wrong you think it is. Earmarks may feel like they’re about money but really it’s a tool for pushing one’s agenda. It’s wrong and it creates agreement out of greed instead of creative collaboration.

Let’s return to real leadership, real liberty, and let’s do it before we spend ourselves into oblivion.