One Person's Earmark Is Another Person's Good Cause or Job

Earmarks. Pork. A bridge-to-nowhere.

These have become dirty words when it comes to federal spending bills, especially during this unusual time of economic upheaval and Washington’s attempt to jumpstart our economy.
Just to clarify, earmarks are individual items that lawmakers want for their districts, and they are able to attach these items to bills without having to discuss the details. (I suppose that’s how the very expensive “bridge-to-nowhere” in Alaska was approved. No details!)

For this fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30, there are between 8,000 and 9,000 earmarks (depending whose counting) worth $7.7 billion more or less. The entire bill amounts to $410 billion.

All this after both parties declared the era earmarks was over.

Everybody proclaims earmarks a bad thing, and there’s no doubt about it: sometimes these pet projects should never be paid for by taxpayers and exist solely to fatten the pockets of the undeserving. There are those who argue that the federal government should do nothing but deliver mail, print money (which they’ve been doing a lot of lately), fund the military and build roads.

But wait. Before you condemn earmarks wholesale, check out what they are. You might change your mind about some of this so-called pork.

For instance, I was perusing the newspaper this morning and looking at the items that California senators and representatives have tossed into the giant earmark hopper, and I have to say that some of them look like they’d be money well spent. In this case, health care and nurses are going to benefit, and chances are other states’ representatives are listening to their constituents in the health care industry.

Among the items for the San Diego area are $1.3 million for a regional emergency communications network, $476,000 for a system to aid public health officials in the event of a bioterrorism attack, and $190,000 for equipment for a nursing program at a local college.

They say the devil is in the details and I don’t know the details regarding these earmarks. On the surface they look like reasonable items, and it’s very possible that some of these earmarks might produce jobs, or at least put some more money into circulation. They might also provide needed services and educational tools.

What’s your opinion about earmarks, and requesting/accepting/spending money from the federal government?

Should federal tax dollars be used for such items, or should it be up to the local or private sector to meet the needs of health care institutions?

Tell us what you think.