Get ‘earmarks’ under control

“Earmarks” are probably here to stay. After all, every senator and congressman needs bring something home for the ‘folks’. So, talk about eliminating them is foolish. I say this in deference to Senator John McCain, whom I admire. I think he knows the former is true; he just wants daylight shown upon earmark spending, and earmark and/or “pork barrel” bills not being attached to a completely unrelated bills scheduled to pass.

It seems reasonable to think that these bills could easily be more out in the open. The first line of business for Congress is to assure our national defense; then, to pass a fiscally responsible balanced budget to run the federal government and its programs. What dollars remain are pooled proportionately back to the states for earmark projects. The key word here is “pooled.” Here is where the negotiations begin.

Each state congressional committee initially submits earmark bills amounting to no specified limit. In addition, there probably ought to be some type of non-binding rating assigned as to the national and/or state-specific value of each bill. A state can elect to opt out of further negotiations and accept their allotted funds for specified projects. This won’t happen often, if ever, because some projects will likely be beyond their scope to undertake alone. The bills to be attached to the major state specific earmark spending bill(s) will necessarily have to be narrowed down by specific project, and otherwise expanded or contracted through complicated and engaged negotiations. The result should be something that works best for everyone.

Will this eliminate all foolish spending? I think not entirely, but it will go a long way to assure more fiscal responsibility, and shed more light on how we are spending our money.

Robert L. Stare

Roselle