From Nicole Gaudiano at the Freeps:
Vermont’s congressional lawmakers are standing behind the federal funding they secure for home-state projects, even as Republicans and some Democrats wage war on the practice.
Sens. Patrick Leahy, a Democrat, and Bernie Sanders, an independent, said they will continue to seek money for earmarks for Vermont projects.
[…]Welch said the Vermont delegation has worked on “some terrific projects” to improve sewers, help local colleges and promote energy efficiency.
“It would be unfortunate to lose the opportunity to help communities that are helping themselves,” he said.
This earmark crusade is so many layers of stupid; earmarks account for a tiny percentage of the overall budget, supporting and funding homestate projects is supposed to be part of a Rep or Senator’s job, etc.
The problem with a bridge to nowhere is not that it’s an “earmark,” it’s that it’s a bridge to nowhere. Why is it so hard to judge these projects on their individual merits?
Of course we all know why. It’s the same psychology at work that went into the “Challenges for Change” nonsense – let the actual policy follow the reactionary soundbite – and then let the all the shrapnel fall where it may.
And the Democratic leadership in Washington (including – especially – the Obama administration) continue to demonstrate how desperately concerned they are about the politics of every situation, even as they demonstrate how incompetent they are at actually understanding those politics. It’s depressing that reactionary soundbite politics trumps all in our political culture these days.
So to Patrick, Bernie, Peter – thanks guys. Thanks for understanding the job you were sent to do and taking it seriously. At present, it’s a losing battle, no doubt, but the projects you guys have funded over the years – and by all rights should continue to support over the coming years – are worth it.
One thing which is just barely breaking into visibility, although possibly not enough to make a difference, is that earmarks don’t cost money.
To hear the earmark hawks say it, earmarks are dollars added to the budget for pet projects. In fact, earmarks are provisions added to appropriations bills that don’t add to the size of the appropriation, but direct how part of the appropriated funds will be spent. Eliminate earmarks and you’ve done nothing to the deficit.
I wish the Vermont delegation good luck at being practically the lone wolves fighting the colossal stupidity that will be coming out of Washington over the next several years. Sadly, they will probably be about the only ones trying to doing anything about it.
for vilifying any positive initiatives that do not directly enrich them.
They seem to know just exactly how to stroke a quasi-populist indignity over imagined breaches and slights on the other side, while effectively tamping down the fires of outrage over genuine greed and malfeasance on their own part.
Earmarks are particularly important to states with small, rural populations like Vermont. Many federal programs are skewed against small states (HUD) and/or small farms (Ag policies). This happens both because small states have less votes and because those not used to the small scale of a state like Vermont just don’t realize (or don’t care) that the programs and regulations they are enacting are prejudicial to small states. I spent the first half of my working life in Pennsylvania, particularly Philadelphia, on housing and economic development projects in low income communities. When I came to Vermont I was astounded at the stark differences in resources available from federal programs and the lack of significant corporate and foundation giving. On the other hand, access to the Congressional delegation, their ability to know the populace well and carefully target earmarks for important projects did help to get things on a more level playing field.