Second, I do recognize that the earmark moratorium is old news. But I'm in a Facebook conversation with a fellow conservative about earmarks, and I'd like to put my thoughts on the issue in one place.
So - here's the argument given by many well-meaning conservatives on the issue of earmarks:
It's just a little bit of money, in comparison with the overall budget. And if Congress doesn't spend the money, the President gets to spend it. It's better to have the consensus of the legislative procedure spending the money than one person.I'm going to assume that since the one typically using this argument calls him or herself a conservative, that they are in agreement that we should deal with Washington's spending problem. I know in the case of the discussion with my friend on Facebook, that is the case, since she said such. Here's the deal. If a candidate runs on the promise that they are going to DC to cut spending, then by gum, they should cut spending, as much as is in their individual and collective power!!!
Earmarks may be a small thing, in terms of percentage of the big budget picture, but they are the only funding decisions that can be made by a single legislator. Simply refuse the earmarks. It's the number one test of whether a legislator is serious about cutting funding. It may be a small part of the spending problem, but if a legislator won't step up to the plate in the one area over which he or she has ultimate control, how can we take them at their word to cut other, bigger spending?
Speaking of taking legislators at their word, this is JUST the opportunity liberals are looking for to cast conservatives as hypocrites. And they'd be right. A candidate who runs on a platform of fiscal responsibility and then requests earmarks should be run out of office at the first opportunity.
I know. I know... It's not the way things have been done historically in Washington. And I have given some old school legislators a pass on their past actions. But in the current political and economic climate, there simply is no excuse. So regarding those legislators from my state - Roger Wicker, one of the biggest earmarkers, is still okay in my book, because he "saw the light" and signed the pledge for the earmark moratorium. I'll hold him to that pledge. Thad Cochran, the KING of earmarkers, on the other hand, tenaciously clings to the old ways, refusing to let go of earmarks. Sorry, Thad, you have to go.
The long and the short of it is this: We have to get a handle on spending in Washington. Big things have to be cut. Little things have to be cut. Everything has to be cut! It's not going to be fun. Some of your pet projects are going to have to be cut. It's going to hurt. But it won't hurt as much as the impending economic collapse that irresponsible spending will bring. Just ask Greece. And Ireland. (And in a few months, Spain and Portugal).
Folks, Dave Ramsey is right. For families AND countries. You can't go very long spending more than you make. If you're in financial distress as a family, you have to sit down and see where you can cut. You can downsize your home (a big thing). You can sell the financed car (a medium sized thing). And you can stop going out to eat (a little thing). If you're going to survive the crisis, you may have to do all three. But the very least you can do is the little thing. We all know families who are in financial trouble, but who still frequent fancy restaurants and wear the latest clothing. Do you think they're serious about getting out of debt if they can't even tackle the little things? Take that to the national stage. Do you think our legislators are serious about getting us out of debt if they can't even tackle earmarks?
I don't.
No comments:
Post a Comment