In both a political climate and an economic state where the federal deficit is at an all time high, and everyone is looking for ways to cut the budget, shouldn't pork-barrel spending go by the wayside? For those not familiar with the term, pork-barrel spending, also known as "earmarks" are special projects attached to pieces of legislation so they will be voted through along with that legislation, even if the pork is completely unrelated to the legislation. The purpose of the earmarks is to get federal money for these special projects in the representatives' home districts.
These projects are often completely unnecessary and are simply ploys to garner favor and get votes lined up for the next election. They can also be very expensive for the taxpayers. The "bridge to nowhere" is a classic example of a pork-barrel project and was talked about a lot during the 2008 presidential election. The bridge would have connected a small Alaskan island of about 50 people, to the mainland even though there was already a ferry running 24/7 and year round. 50 people would have benefited from the project, but the Senator who proposed it wanted to spend $398 million dollars of tax payer money on the project.
There are countless other examples of even more useless projects that get funding by way of pork-barrel spending. I think that pork-barrel spending should not be allowed as it is a burden on the already fragile economy and takes needed tax payer dollars away from other, necessary areas. The earmarks also become a big issue in Congress, distracting from the bills that are hard enough to pass as it is. I believe cutting pork-barrel spending would not only allow more money to flow to areas that need it, but it would also allow congressmen to focus on their job, representing the country, and not provide them an opportunity to bribe voters.
In Nick Matthews' post on pork-barrel spending, Mr. Matthews seems to share the frustration of many Americans today. This aggravation with our government spending is apparent as he reflects on how we are trying to solve the federal deficit, yet money continues to be spent on projects like the "bridge to nowhere." For those of you unfamiliar with that project, that was an idea that was projected to cost $398 million dollars to build a bridge that would benefit a mere fifty people. It is spending such as this that causes me and I assume, Nick Matthews, to become skeptical of the tactics that our government is implementing to fix our current issues.
ReplyDeleteMr. Matthews does an excellent job introducing us to the subject and defining his topic for those that might be unaware of "earmarks." He also provides relevant examples that allow the reader to decipher if these "earmarks" are truly "ploys to garner favor and get votes lined up for the next election." Even though he did not include a source for the "bridge to nowhere" argument, I found that I am already familiar with the subject so I know it is a legitimate example. It is clear that pork-barrel spending is an issue in our government and should be either eliminated or heavily regulated. In this aspect I completely agree with Mr. Matthews however, the idea of using it to help the federal deficit I find is too large of an expectation.
Realistically speaking, the pork-barrel spending of our government takes up a very small percentage of our federal deficit. This is seen in the New York Times "Budget Puzzle" where "earmarks" are projected to consume $14 billion of the $418 billion dollars in 2015. Of course fixing the deficit has to start somewhere but that does not seem like a very drastic change, or something to base an argument off of. I thouroughly enjoyed reading this blog and observing Mr. Matthews views on something I also strongly disagree with. Earmarks I feel should be eliminated not because of the federal deficit, because deficit or not, entirely too much money is being thrown at unnecessary projects.