...the earmarks process has been abused, which is why I suspended any requests for my home state, whether it was for senior centers or what have you, until we cleaned it up.The second part of the Senator's statement caught my eye. Is he saying that it wasn't the case that special interests weren't introducing the requests, or that the earmarks he requested weren't for special interests? I don't really think that it matters. The point that I believe he was trying to make is that earmarks for special interests aren't desirable.
And he's also right [referring to an earlier McCain comment] that oftentimes lobbyists and special interests are the ones that are introducing these kinds of requests, although that wasn't the case with me.
But if special interest groups are introducing the earmarks, to whom are they introducing them? To the legislator, right? So, regardless of who actually comes up with the request, the responsibility for adding the earmark to a piece of legislation must fall into the legislator's lap.
Take a look at some of the earmarks that Senator Obama has been involved with. The following list is provided by The Citizen's Against Government Waste:
- $526,900 for the GoGirlGo! Chicago Initiative, Women's Sports Foundation, Chicago
- $401,850 for a juvenile delinquency prevention program, Shedd Aquarium, Chicago
- $344,520 for The Northeastern Illinois Sewer Consortium
- $735,000 for The Lewis University Airport Improvement Program
- Tens of millions for public transportation in the state of Illinois
The list is too long to include here, but you can see it here , by simply searching on the Senator's name. You'll see that the earmarks total almost $90 million for 2008.
I've got news, kids. These are all special interests. Taking money from Illinois' neighbors for Illinois projects that don't fall under a Constitutional mandate for spending is theft! Don't the taxpayers of Iowa, Indiana, etc. have their own transportation, juvenile delinquency, and local airport repairs to worry about? Let the state of Illinois tax its own citizens for its own projects. For Obama to pretend that his earmarks are legitimate is bull hockey. Tell me where I'm wrong.
1 comment:
Earmarks are controversial. Period. But at least Obama has released a list of all his earmark requests (see NY Times article), in an effort to "underscore his promise to bring greater openness and transparency to government." This action, along with his agreement with McCain on a "proposal to ban spending earmarked for home-state projects for one year" emphasizes the point he was making in the quote you highlighted.
Although the ban was shot down, a brighter spotlight was shone on the practice. And I believe Obama is right when he says that "the earmarks process has been abused" and that it ought to be "cleaned up" rather than done away with completely.
Greater transparency and more regulation is what is needed. Earmarks themselves are not the problem. It is the process by which they are added to legislation, how they are used and what they are used for. Earmarks for specific state needs can be beneficial for the entire country, especially when it comes to things like research, crime prevention, and health care, to name a few.
I've said quite enough. Especially given that I don't know a whole lot about economics and am mostly just talking out of my you-know-what. In the end, I agree with you to a point--that earmarks can be a big problem--but just because something gets out of control doesn't mean the original thing is to blame. It's the people who are using the thing and who allowed it to get out of control in the first place that's the problem.
Post a Comment