The reading this week briefly discussed the use of earmarks in bills. The way the text talked about the use of earmarks reflected the generally negative feeling in America towards their use. Many Americans view earmarks as wasteful government spending. Thus, in 2011, the Senate appropriations committee placed a two-year moratorium on earmarks.
But, are they actually harmful? According to CBSNews, earmarks count for less than a ½ a percent of the entire Congressional budget. Moreover, many of them target specific communities in need. President Obama has both condemned their use and yet approved legislation containing them. House Speaker Boehner, who was a strong proponent of the initial ban, has said he would consider reforms that reintroduce earmarks.
The Huffington Post article by Richard Cowan discusses the support for ending the ban on earmarks. One of the main reasons he cites is how earmarks increase the ability to pass legislation; they are used like tools in a bargain. Congressmen and women are willing to vote for bills they don’t necessarily favor if they can set funds aside for a certain project they care more about. The article however, doesn’t say whether earmarks are like riders – that they don’t need to be relevant to the bill. The fact that most earmarks go unnoticed when the bills are passed understandably leaves constituents with an uneasy feeling. That is the same feeling you might get when hearing John Conyers discuss how he votes on bills.
No comments:
Post a Comment