 |
 |
 |
||
 |
|
|
||
|
||||
 |
|||||
|
2/8/2008 Earmarks raise the bottom line By James Sensenbrenner The column below reflects the views of the author, and these opinions are neither endorsed nor supported by WisOpinion.com. When President Bush released his budget for Fiscal Year 2009 on Monday, February 4, there was a flurry of activity as Republicans and Democrats went to the media praising or denigrating the document. The irony of all this attention is that it’s as much a waste of time as the actual budget proposal, which quite frankly, isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on. This is by no means a reflection of the current Administration. It is a reflection of where people’s focus should be -- on the appropriations process, rather than the budget process. Every year, as the Constitution requires, the President submits his budget proposal to Congress. But every year, Congress chooses what -- and how much -- to appropriate based on its priorities. Last year saw the new Democratic Majority propose an alternate budget that included the biggest tax hike in our nation’s history. Then, when it failed to pass all except one appropriations bill, Congress combined the remaining 11 appropriations bills into one behemoth catch-all package last December that included 9,000 earmarks worth more than $12,000,000,000. I voted against this bill because I could not bring myself to support legislation that included pork like Senator Hillary Clinton’s request for $1,000,000 for a Woodstock ‘hippie’ museum at taxpayer expense. During the past few years, our federal spending has gotten out of hand. Undoubtedly, the events of September 11, 2001, and the funds needed for the War against Terror have contributed to this increase. These are costs over which we have very little, if any, control. But there has been an exponential increase in Members requesting money to fund special projects in their district. These are costs Congress can, and must, control, because as you can see from the chart below, there is a direct correlation between the number of earmarks and total federal spending. I remember in 1987 when President Reagan vetoed a highway bill because it had approximately 157 earmark requests. He considered this to be a waste of government funds, and found it offensive that Members of Congress would choose to spend taxpayer funds in such a self-serving manner. As a member of the party of fiscal responsibility, I found this to be an admirable trait, and wholeheartedly supported President Reagan at the time. Last month, in his State of the Union address, President Bush criticized earmarks, and promised to veto appropriations bills unless the number of earmarks within them are cut in half. That, more than the President’s budget proposal, is a step in the right direction. After all, if every family in America is expected to live within their means, why should the federal government be exempt from this principle? 
|
|