With our national debt continuing to spiral out of control and all of the presidential candidates talking about tightening the leash on government spending, it is surprising to me that last year’s legislation adopting new ethics rules for the legislative branch did not cover the money pit that is congressional pet projects.
According to an April 7 article in the New York Times, “lawmakers can still secretly direct billions of dollars to favored organizations by making vague requests rather than issuing explicit instructions to government agencies in committee reports and spending bills.” Instead of a direct demand for funds for a pet project, or a “hard earmark,” legislators can “respectfully suggest” the direction of the funding and achieve the same result.
The article mentions several pet projects, some of which Congress has given federal funding in the billions of dollars through this process of “soft earmarking.” How is it that with so many Americans wondering if they are going to be able to stay afloat through tax season that the government can be so cavalier with taxpayer money?
I believe firmly in a transparent government, and although none of these soft earmarks is hidden from the public, they draw money away from the initiatives on which the people have voiced an opinion. No congressional election has included these pet projects as platform points, probably because if a congressman said he was going to use taxpayer money to fund things like, as the NYT puts it, “a Christian broadcasting group to build a shortwave radio station in Madagascar,” or “a program to save hawks in Haiti,” he or she would do considerable damage to his or her campaign.
Not all congressional pet projects are bad or wasteful, but in the current financial atmosphere I think we need to draw in the reins. With so little money to go around to things like Medicare and education and Social Security, how is it that Congress has not cracked down on soft earmarking?
It is clear that no matter who becomes president he or she will be faced with re-prioritizing our government spending and fixing the cracks through which federal funding seems to be continuously slipping. Part of the problem is that much of the money spent on these pet projects cannot be traced back to a specific lawmaker unless he or she publicly advertises his or her involvement.
The only part of the federal government’s budget that should not be available to the public in an itemized fashion is the defense budget. Military strategy being what it is, it is understandable that the federal government does not want to advertise exactly what it is buying with our money. However, beyond defense and military spending, every part of the federal budget should be transparent so that we know exactly where our money is going.
Openness and accountability in government will be a big issue in the coming presidential term because of the smoke-and-mirrors style of the Iraq war. If pet projects must continue to claim federal funds, they should be subject to the will of the people the same way every other aspect of government should be. Soft earmarking is just a way of bypassing the scrutiny of the people, and it needs to be stopped. The people should have the right to know exactly where their tax money is going.
E-mail Sean at [email protected]
