"Eliminating an earmark for $500,000 to fund a program to combat drug-use locally only means that $500,000 will be funded and some bureaucrat in a federal agency will use it as he decides, rather than as the elected representative decides."
A couple of weeks ago, Kay Granger sent out a press release defending her overseas travel to Malta, Greece, Kosovo, and wherever the IAEA is located. Some of it made sense. But she couldn't escape the fact that half the trips still seemed completely unnecessary, or the recently reported theory that the soldiers abroad don't really give a rat's fat fart when MoCs come to visit. I'm waiting for her to start talking about gas prices and totally ignore the fact that all the fuel she spent globetrotting was a big waste.
The beginning quote is from a recent press release about the earmarking process. And yes, she's okay making points about what earmarks are and where they come from. However, it would be nice if she could explain why that 500 grand isn't taken out of the overall budget. And referring to the person in the federal agency as "some bureaucrat" is rather insulting. Why couldn't the bureaucrat turn it around and say "It's better for someone who actually works with these issues on a daily basis for a living to make the decision how the money gets spent than some fat-cat Congresswoman who has to please a horde of special interests and fickle voters every two years."
The argument "Well, if we don't earmark it, someone else will just spend it anyway" isn't the strongest one to take a stand with.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment