1 of 1

No

Write now Article Tools

As amazing as it is to see myself type these words, here it goes... I do not believe that earmarks should be banned from the federal budget process. Let the Boo's commense.
Hear me out. I am very much opposed to ninety-nine percent of our government's policy decisions being made on the basis of whether or not that certain policy will engourge the pockets of one special interest group or another. I believe that it is, much like the electorial college, an antiquated and corrupt system. If big oil could get its hands on invisible 16-gauge rope, they would literally sit in the rafters of the House of Representatives and the Senate and control their marionettes (also known as Congressmen and Senators), so they could by-pass the annoying job of watching CNN to make sure that their puppet voted like they were told to vote.

This is the problem: earmarks are how elected officials become elected officials. If future Senator Billy-Bob Joe Jack(R) doesn't promise the fine people of Nebraska that, if elected,he would personally see to it that the federal Government will force automobile makers to switch their product's fuel source to Ethanol (whose main ingredient just happens to be corn, Nebraska's most plentiful resource), then the fine people of Nebraska have no reason to vote for him. In reality, earmarks are the only real way that we can tell that the U.S. is still a Republic.
If American's weren't so apathetic, earmarks would not be looked at in such a negative light. When people think of earmarks, they think of crooked politicians taking money from billionaire businessmen that want to make sure that their multi-national conglamorate can claim only $6,124.43 for last year's profit and not get audited. Originally, earmarks were the only way for people to have their voices heard in Congress. Congressmen didn't always have e-mail addresses, which their constituents can now fill with complaints about potholes in front of their houses, and how to address the homeless population (not how to find them housing, but how to keep them from lowering property value in the area).
I do not believe that earmarks are the best way to get funding for a certain project. I do believe that for some projects, earmarking of funds is the ONLY way that it will ever even be considered. There are over 400 people that vote on every bill that hits the floors of both houses of Congress. If a Congressman from Montana wants to ensure that his campaign promise of getting funding to have at least one paved road by the year 2050 in his State, he pretty much has to rely on earmarking those funds. A piece of s-, uh, legislation, like that would get thrown out of Congress faster than Sen. Larry Craig can tap his foot in an airport bathroom stall.
Earmarks can be very beneficial, and even necessary, for this country to function. They can also be hideously misused. It is the same with any tool of any trade: used correctly, they can be vital to make sure that under-represented populations' voices are heard; used incorrectly, they can lead to an elitist country where eighty percent of the wealth is held by the top one percent of the population. Wait a minute...which side am I arguing for?

Learn more about this author, Thomas Mcdaniel.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Add your voice

Know something about Should earmarks be banned from the federal budget process??
We want to hear your view. Write now!