Congressional leaders like Harry Reid don't want to lose their earmarks. "It's less than 2% of the budget" they exclaim. "It's only symbolic".
2010, there was 2.38 trillion in revenue, 2.184 mandatory +1.368 discretionary = 3.552 trillion in expenditures. We have to cut the budget to 67% of the existing budget to balance it, or increase revenues to 150% of their existing amounts, and that's assuming a budget freeze at the existing levels.
Right. It's only symbolic. So if they can't even cut a measly 2% out of the budget, how in the world are they going to be able to cut 33% of the budget just to make it balance?
But earmarks are an important part of the congressional process. They can get senators/congressmen to support bills by adding the congressmen's earmarks into it, and those earmarks help get the congressmen reelected.
That's the gist of what the earmark defenders are saying. To this I say that I have another word for it -- bribery. There are so many things wrong with that process. First of all, if the bill isn't good enough to support, figure out a way to make it better -- not by adding earmarks, but actually making it a better bill that more congressmen can support. Those politicians are there to represent all of us, to do what's best for ALL americans, not just the ones in their own states, or more specifically, the ones that donated enough money to the congressmen to get them elected and are now being paid back by the earmarks. Second, if they didn't have earmarks, then the congressmen wouldn't hold out on supporting a bill they'd otherwise support just so they can get their earmarks into it. Third, those earmarks are specifically to make the congressmen look good so they can get reelected -- why are we allowing them to fund their campaigns with tax dollar money? Sure, it's very indirect, but it's still what is happening. Just because you're used to using earmarks to help get a bill through the senate, Harry Reid, doesn't mean you should CONTINUE to do it. It's a bad process, get rid of it.
All the more reason we need to limit all the terms, but I've already blogged about that.
"I have an obligation to the people of Nevada to do what is important to Nevada, not what is important to some bureaucrat down here (in Washington) with green eyeshades," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said. "So I am not going, personally, going to back off of bringing stuff back to Nevada."
ReplyDeleteWhen will these leaders on their high horses realize that you can't cut the deficit by doing "what's important for Nevada" -- you have to do what's important for the United States.