Trending
Happy Festivus! Thank God 2022 has come to an end.
Many, many years ago my high school Civics teacher taught me that political leaders had the broad public interest in mind when they considered community issues. Unfortunately, that optimistic view does not square with the actual results of local policy making today.
Elkins is about to kick off another $30,000 walking trail expansion.
Elkins has jumped on the gravy train and acquired additional money from a particular group of individuals while harming taxpayers and damaging the overall economy.
This letter explores the perverse results, and illustrates the problem with earmarks.
Earmarks generally refer to items slipped into legislation by individual lawmakers to benefit particular activities in their home states.
Earmarking, or "pork" spending, provides recipients with contracts, grants, loans, and other types of benefits.
As a fiscal conservative I have expressed my disapproval of the recent 7-plus trillion dollar federal omnibus budget. Specifically $3.6 million earmarked for the Michelle Obama Walking Trail Project in Georgia.
With nearly 2000 different government subsidy programs, the federal budget has become a giant favor factory for organized pressure groups at the expense of average citizens.
Surely Americans can free themselves from the addictive pork drug?
Another reason it is hard for local leadership to challenge special interest spending: Public officials rarely admit that any program is a failure. People in local government never admit failure because they become vested in the continued funding of programs since their careers, pride and reputations are on the line.
Nobody knows where the economy is headed, especially politicians. Thus, when local government officials start choosing to use earmarks, they will likely bet on the wrong horses at taxpayer expense.
The nearly 2000 federal subsidy programs present a wealth of earmarking opportunities for legislators. In recent years, some infamous earmarks have included $50 million for an indoor rainforest in Iowa and $223 million for a "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska.
Local officials will argue that spending $30,000 is no big deal since it represents just a small share of overall taxpayer dollars. The problem is that pork barrel spending has contributed to a general erosion of fiscal responsibility.
Earmarks have exacerbated the narrow mindset of most local officials, who spend their time appeasing local interest groups rather than tackling issues of broad community concern. Many politicians complain about the soaring federal deficit, yet their own staff members spend most of their time trying to secure earmarks in spending bills.
In West Virginia, after all, pork barrel spending isn't frowned upon; on the contrary, local political figures believe, like the legendary Senator Robert Byrd did, spending federal dollars is just another way to provide jobs for their family and friends down the street, if not for their own financial gain.
Good Day!
Robert Ware
French Creek