If an earmark is a procedural corruption of Congress, what would have the best chance of reducing the need for earmarks?
Many earmarks that get air play are research projects for strange subjects (academia), museums or special institutions of local interest (arts and humanist subjects), and questionable roadways (public works).
The first two examples are just questionable for national expenditure. Roadways are likely to be of more dubious value if paid for by the federal government rather than state or local governments. Why? Locals know local needs better. I would prefer that the federal government drastically curtail its taxation and involvement in federal highways. This is just an invitation to play legislative games. The bridge to nowhere is fine if Alaskans want it and pay for it. Why should the lower 48 contribute?
An empty highway across Arizona (which one I don't know, I am just trying to paint a mental image) from a town in New Mexico to California may make more sense for the federal government to underwrite, since Arizona gets little benefit. But if it is really that worthwhile to all but Arizona, couldn't a toll road solve the problem for Arizona's budgeting?
Earmarking this project is too much money, too poorly analyzed, and likely too expensive for the benefits obtained. Let's try a different way.
No comments:
Post a Comment