15 April 2010

Congressional Spending Earmarks: Good or Bad?

WaPo checks in on Congressional earmarks and points out more than a bit of hypocrisy.

"We're spending a lot of money that we don't have," the veteran Republican tells hundreds of business leaders, many nodding in agreement over bacon and eggs.

Lost in the moment is this irony: Shelby's anti-spending message is being delivered in a government-built museum to which he frequently steers public money. The admiring crowd is made up of people whose livelihood depends on federal aerospace programs that drive the local economy. And the main point of Shelby's speech is to assure them he's fighting to stop NASA budget cuts and keep the spigot in Washington flowing.

The scene helps explain why Washington can't control its spending. Lawmakers and their voters usually love the federal money that flows into their communities, even though they're wary of spending in the abstract and balk at tax increases.

-- snip --

Cochran, while calling Democratic budgets "dangerous," has grabbed more than $2.5 billion in earmarks over the past three years, according to the nonpartisan Taxpayers for Common Sense. That's more than any other member of Congress, Republican or Democrat, and it's almost as much as the $2.8 billion that Mississippi is receiving from President Barack Obama's much-criticized economic stimulus package. Shelby, who is coasting to re-election in November, isn't far behind with about $1 billion over the past three years.

It's not just their earmarks. The lawmakers routinely wield influence to secure federal aid for struggling local farmers or to stop local program cuts such as those proposed at NASA. Shelby temporarily blocked all of Obama's nominations recently over disputes about new federal facilities in his state and a Pentagon contract that could create 1,000 jobs in Mobile.


By: Brant

No comments: