On Febuary 3rh, 2012, a senator from Hawaii defended earmark spending and actually had a solid argument against banning the practice. His argument is rooted in the constitutional separation of powers which grants Congress the Power of the Purse and implied if earmarks were banned, funding for local projects that meets the needs of the state the earmark funds would be left to the White House, bureaucrats not elected by the people and only be achieved through political horse trading, which is something a certain former Governor from Illinois claimed as a defense for corruption. He however also misses the point. Earmarks are seen as a corrupt way of opening the purse strings for project completely unrelated to the bill they are written into. Senators should instead seek to ensure funding is available to the Governor they represent to spend as he or she sees best fit, not grant a favor to 50 residents with a 400 million dollar bridge to nowhere.
Here is the video.
No comments:
Post a Comment