I believe earmarking is necessary if the need is reasonable. The example given in the book was Social Security because thousands of senior citizens depend on the payouts to support themselves after retirement. I cannot complain too much about this type of earmarking because I feel it protects a legitimate need in our society.
However, I do feel that earmarking has a natural tendency to lead to abuse, especially when earmarked funds are for private businesses as opposed to non-profit entities. I think the lines can be blurred as to whether or not the funds are in the public’s best interest when given directly to private industry. Considering that the basic premise behind earmarking is the elimination of competition with other budget expenditures, it is very risky to have funds given to private industry without a serious inspection into how the earmarked funds are going to be spent.
It was mentioned later in the chapter that tax breaks are often not evaluated after the fact to determine if they are achieving the desired outcome or goal. I would imagine that the same is true of earmarking. If that is the case, how can adequate oversight of earmarked funds be accomplished?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with you that their should be some sort of process to ensure that the money is being spent wisely (a checks and balances process). It seems that those using the process correctly would be the ones getting hurt as you eluded to in your statement. Perhaps a follow up on how the money is being spent should be completed. But that probably brings about the issue of new gov't employees and expenditures. But this is probably a cheaper/safer way to control millions/billions of dollars that could be potentially wasted if not investigated.
ReplyDelete