One quite valuable benefit of blogging every day is, it causes me to research and learn out about things in more detail than I would normally would. That's because I want to be as accurate as possible in my postings. And, as a result, in recent days I've been reading a considerable amount about earmarks.
In concept, earmarks are pretty simple. As I noted yesterday, they're generally pet projects that don't go through proper legislative channels, last year totalling nearly $38 billion. And, typically, these are the funds that legislators bring back home to their constituencies, to be spent in their respective districts or states.
Now, looking at earmarks as ways for congresspeople to help localities by pumping in funds seems reasonable, because supposedly these investments can produce economic benefit and additionally create jobs. So, on the surface that all seems pretty good. But, as I consider the concept, I'm not so sure that the process is good at all.
Because, if I'm reading correctly about how earmarks work, I think there's something really wrong with the structure, and certainly with its implementation. The process, it seems, is that every budget year an amount is designated for spending at the discretion of congress, or at times by the president, and like everything else having to do with budgets, the amount keeps increasing (last year, however, there was a slight decrease.)
But, regardless of how earmarks are spent, and by whom, my question relates to where the funds come from in the first place. Because, no matter which side of government actually decides where to spend the money, it originates from taxes. So, right now we have an argument brewing about whether congress folks should allocate the funds, or the president, or as another alternative, use the money to pay down the deficit. But, what are these thieves really discussing? How to spend 38 billion taxpayer dollars simply because they've taken it in.
You would think at a time like this, responsible folks would try to alleviate financial pressure on their constituents by shelving their projects, or waiting until a more appropriate time. Or, perhaps, doing something really benficial, like returning the 38 billion bucks to those who paid it in. But no, for government, there's never any consideration for tax-payers unless there's a revolt at the polls.
And the odd thing really is, we've just had what amounts to an electoral revolt, yet these guys still in office apparently don't understand what happened. So that means that two years from now they'll learn the value of really important programs the hard way, like when they're collecting tax-payer paid unemployment insurance.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
No comments:
Post a Comment