Huff and Puff about Earmarks

In my opinion, Congressionally directed funding for specific projects, often called earmarks, will
largely continue.

An increasingly vocal group of spending conservatives is bringing overdue attention to this
proliferating practice.

On the Senate side, last week a Republican working group, including both defenders and critics
of earmarks, unveiled recommendations that focus on increased disclosure of earmarks
requested by lawmakers and the executive branch. In the House, the major focus is on a
proposal to create a study committee and impose a halt on earmarks, until the committee comes
up with recommendations.

But the push, whether for noble or political reasons, to stop or severely restrict earmarks is still
only the view of a minority of the minority party. For example, the Senate recently rejected, 29-
71, an attempt to force a vote on an amendment for a year-long moratorium on earmarks.

After all, one of the basic jobs of Congress is the power of the checkbook -- to determine
government spending amounts and priorities. Furthermore, a key aspect of each lawmaker’s job
is to promote their constituent’s interests, including garnering their share of federal spending and
funding for local priorities.

In my opinion, Congress should require more disclosure about the proponents and beneficiaries
of directed spending. If it can’t stand scrutiny, it does not merit funding.

 Gary Capistrant

In Your Opinion

If you would like to respond, please use the form below. 

Selected responses will be posted on the 'In My Opinion' section of our web site.