Hello everyone, I wanted to comment on the upcoming weeks reading earlier but just got around to completing the reading. I thought it was interesting in the Rubin book to look at all the ways that federal, state, and local governments can tax people and businesses.
One thing in the chapter that caught my eye and that we discussed briefly last week in class was Earmarks. I found it interesting that Earmarking was considered more of a state practice than a federal one. Living close to West Virginia I always hear about Senator Byrd. He is affectionately refered to as "The King of Pork". Granted he is the oldest and I believe the longest serving member of Congress currently. He has received over $1 billion in Earmarks for his state. He has over 30 projects that feature his name such as the: Byrd Freeway, Byrd Highway, Byrd Cancer Research Center, and Byrd Institute just to name a few.
On the federal level Earmarks allow for money to be set aside for projects that don't have to compete with other items in the budget. Earmark money is a guarantee if you win it for your state. However are Earmarks really beneficial? Do you believe that everyone gets their fair share or do some states get overlooked while others (such as West Virginia) get too much? Should Earmarks even exist?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I guess I have two problems with earmarks. First, the Byrd example. Politicians spend time and money trying to earmakr money for pet projects that will look good for them as opposed to allowing that money to go to things that may be very important but may not garner the individual attention. Second, the book talks about money earmarked for Social Security. Unfortunately even though this money is earmakred, the Federal goverment continually borrows from the Social Security coffers. It seems if money is to be earmarked, it should not be allowed to be lent out.
ReplyDelete