Rule making and rule breaking.

I am not worried about the incremental approach that Wildavsky discusses. I worry more about the constant state of flux the rules of budgeting seems to be in. Rubin discusses the major changes in budgeting over the years. I find it very disturbing that the legislature is constantly reforming the rules to fit their situation. I understand the desires to curb deficits and the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings act. What I don't understand is why then, there is so much effort put into circumventing these rules. Then effort goes into reforming the rules. Now the budget is so large and complicated I wonder what the point is of actually spending time and money on making rules. It seems that all of the actors do what they want, regardless of what the rules are. Each committee and each congressman only pays attention to those aspects that affect them the most. It seems to me that when budgeting is so complicated that our elected representatives cannot follow rules and cannot read the legislation they are passing, then sweeping changes are needed.

Earmarking Discussion Comment

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?

Discussion week of Jan 17

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?