Earmarks, Entitlements, and Pork (Bribery????)

We have the best government that money can buy. - Mark Twain

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy..." - Alexander Fraser Tytler, Scottish lawyer and writer, 1770

An earmark is an inclusion to a law, by a member of Congress, to specify funds for a particular purpose. Usually these earmarks have little or nothing to do with the main premise of the proposed bill. In order to vote against an earmark, a congressman would have to vote against the entire bill, thereby voting against a conceivably worthwhile program. Because of this, the lesser of two evils is practiced, voting for a good bill containing a bad earmark.

Approximately 9,000 earmarks costing about $8 Billion were included in the 2009 Omnibus Spending Bill. If the $8 Billion was excluded, the tax bill for 800,000 families would be reduced by $10,000 each, a real tax relief to America’s Middle Class. And that example was just for the Omnibus Spending Bill in 2009. In fiscal year’s 2008 Total Federal Budget, there were approximately 11,500 earmarks totaling about $16.5 Billion for the year. This means in 2008, 1 ½ million families could have saved over $10,000 each in taxes. Again, this would be meaningful tax relief for the middle class. A Billion here and a Billion there and pretty soon you’re talking serious money; if Congress only knew. Although the party in power gets the majority of earmarks included in a bill, earmarks do not belong to any one party alone. Each political party is guilty; a factual wakeup call for all the American public. The public hears of transparency, earmarks are an area where transparency would be appreciated. The larger the total budget, the less any one earmark becomes ‘meaningful.’ Therefore, Congress may have a selfish motive to continually spend and increase the budget. In 2008, the total Federal Budget was a little less than $3 Trillion. With earmarks at $16.5 Billion, they represented “only” 0.55% of the total, a little more than ½%. Now that doesn’t sound so bad. The larger the total budget, the less ominous each earmark. Congress has a way of using percentages instead of real dollar figures to fool the public. Of course they’ve had years and years of practice.

Earmarks should not be included in proposed bills. Each earmark should be reported to the public (transparency) and should include: The sponsor, the amount, the purpose and the local or national benefit to the public. Earmarks should be voted on separately, based on merits only. A bill coming before Congress should have a theme, an easily distinguishable commonality. Any proposals, additions, or amendments must match the theme of the proposed bill. If not, a separate vote is essential. Congressmen should not force millions of taxpayers to fund their pet projects by burying them in otherwise worthwhile legislation. It’s our money they’re spending, not theirs.

In the political system there is also a practice of adding special provisions to a bill to get one or more congressman’s support. These provisions are different than the earmarks discussed above and may actually benefit the Congressman’s state or district residents; however, the provisions are only being added to secure a vote and not to enhance the proposed bill. They do not add value to the entire country. In 2009, we saw this happen with the Health Reform Bill. Hundreds of millions of dollars were added so that a few areas of the country would benefit at the expense of the rest of the country. This was only done to get enough votes to pass the bill. Without these provisions being added, it is doubtful that the bill would be passed. In other words, on the merits of the bill alone, there would not have been passage. That does not speak well for the bill. If a bill can only be passed by adding special sweeteners, the bill should be allowed to fail. One such sweetener, to a southern state, was reported to be $300 Million. 30,000 American families will have to pay $10,000 each for one state to benefit. Another state received a promise that any increase in cost of one of the mandated programs, to that state and that state alone, would be, forever, paid for by the Federal government. How can the public put a cost on something that will never end? Would our Founding Fathers consent to our Federal Government treating one state differently than another? Hardly seems democratic!

This is an excerpt from my book: “Essays from a Fed-Up Middle Aged, Middle Class American”
See more excerpts of my book at Amazon Books:
Amazon Books Preview: Essays from a Fed-Up Middle Aged, Middle Class American