by Emily Johnson

Created on: January 11, 2009   Last Updated: April 22, 2012

Just out of curiosity, one day I went on-line to see if I could find even one United States Senator who has not expressed shock over Governor Blagojevich's pay-to-play philosophy with regard to the vacant senate seat in Illinois. I came up empty. Every single Senator seemed astonished that there could ever be a connection between favors doled out by politicians in exchange for financial contributions. In their defense, I think their expressions of surprise were genuine, but it wasn't because of what he was trying to achieve. What really knocked them for six was that he said it out loud.

There is no question that the congressional process of earmarks and pork-barrel spending is in need of reform and that many Members expect (or at least hope) for a little friendly support from those who get a piece of the earmarking action. But doing away with earmarks altogether would be a serious mistake. The whole point of a representative democracy is that Members of Congress know best the needs of the Districts they hail from. It's their job to advocate for those needs, and they do have closest contact with constituents who know the problems.

When the Defense Department refused to request sufficient funds for protective gear and armored trucks for our troops in Iraq, parents of soldiers brought this unfunded need to the attention of members of Congress and an earmark that provided the money.

A congresswoman in San Francisco will know more about whether that port of entry is secure than a bureaucrat in Washington who has very little contact with any federal employees in San Francisco. Further, there's an unwritten rule of "I see nothing, I hear nothing" within the federal bureaucracy. I've known bureaucrats who are so frustrated by the gag rule with regard to not being straight with Congress about money needs that they've arranged surreptitious meetings off capitol grounds. Many of these meetings resulted in critically needed earmarks for projects the Administration refused to request funds for.

Critically important innovations, discoveries and research might not exist today if it were not for Members of Congress being able to earmark. It should come as no surprise that the federal bureaucracy is not exactly known for innovation. There are hundreds of thousands committed public servants out there receiving federal paychecks, but anyone who has ever worked in Washington D.C. will back me up when I say there is also a large group of career bureaucrats making the big decisions

• 1
• 2
• Next Page >>