The move is an election-year appeal to voters frustrated with Washington's free-spending ways. But it is a one-year pause, not a permanent ban.I've written many times about how much I dislike earmarks, however this is nothing more than a publicity stunt. They ban them for a year, possibly get the House back, and then have folks like our Representative Scott Garrett go right back to sending money to programs people don't want.
This politically motivated "moratorium" has been brought about from the same Republicans that vote against PAYGO on a regular basis. This is the fundamental problem Republicans have had for the last decade, they govern by soundbite instead of sound policy.
While one can only hope voters recognize this as the stunt it is, the only meaningful way to ban earmarks is to legislatively eliminate them. If the Democrats had any gumption, they would get an up or down vote on a five to ten year moratorium and see what happens.
1 comment:
I'm personally sick of Scott Garrett's highly partisan newsletters. He quotes the party line with no independent thinking at all, let alone suggestions for changing the status quo in any meaningful way.
I've never participated in congressional elections, but next time around, I will be working/volunteering/funding anyone against Garrett. I'm embarrassed that this guy is representing our district.
Post a Comment