Earmarks

Bob Novak is a blowhard, but he's an entertaining blowhard. I usually enjoy reading his columns because they provide some interesting insight, and he doesn't generally spare either side from his withering comments. This article on earmarks was no different from usual.

The discussion on earmarks is interesting. Conservatives seem to be split on the issue, with the hardcore fiscal folks generally opposed to earmarks as a waste of taxpayer money (gee, ya think?), and the more states' rights types tending to support earmarks. This kind of baffles me, because there isn't really a "right" to receive grossly inappropriate federal funding. One argument often advanced on this side is that earmarks are a perfectly acceptable, time-honored way of getting money for your district. As Novak points out, however, the use of earmarks has drastically increased over the past 12 years. Time-honored my ***.

I guess you can tell where I come down on this issue. I may be left of center, but I don't believe in wasteful spending. Virtually all of these projects are innappropriate uses of federal funds, and would never survive if they weren't tucked away discreetly in completely unrelated bills. I believe in simple, clearly-written, on topic legislation. Earmarks are one of the many things that muddle bills up. "Bundling," the practice of including non-relevant items in a bill, has long been practiced. Some even argue that the system was designed to work that way, to force compliance from a President in situations where he doesn't want to comply. That doesn't make it right. I'm not naive enough to think the practice will stop, but I will never support it.

I'll end this post with a shout-out to two Republicans whose views I generally don't agree with, but who on this issue deserve to be listened to. Jeff Flake (AZ) in the House, and Tom Coburn (OK) in the Senate, I salute you. Keep up the good fight, and hopefully someday federal spending will make a wee bit more sense.