After hearing numerous individuals on the radio, television, internet, and in person spout their irritatingly vacuous arguments against "porkbarrel" spending, I find now a fitting time to set the record straight. I've just about had it with the right-wing tax crusaders, quite frankly.
Let's be clear: earmark spending, by definition, is NOT wasteful spending, so please stop treating it as such. During Meet the Press a weekend ago, Senator Charles Schumer from New York was quick to point out that there are many programs, such as crime-control initiatives led by DAs, that obtain funding through the use of earmarking. In fact, you can take the vast swath of services provided by governments of all levels--police, firefighters, paramedics, teachers, administrators, etc.--and find that our Congresspeople are in a unique position to allocate funds to services that many of us probably take for granted. So, if my Congressman wants to allocate funds for after-school programs in an area that has high crime, is he pissing away money? Please. These types of straw man arguments should have no place in politics, though they often creep in to help expedite poorly crafted agendas.
Genetic research is also another target of earmarks that are typically admonished by the specious argumentation of "taxpayer advocates." First of all, since when were the taxpayers of this country subsumed under one particular organization's jurisdiction? If I think you are fighting AGAINST my interests using a different set of funding precepts than I, then you are by definition not representing me. Plain and simple. Yes, Cato Institute, this means you can return to your pseudo-analysis without claiming that you're sticking it to the man on my behalf. Secondly, genetic research has yielded many benefits that we have reaped in terms of improved medications and other treatments. Who cares if we are researching people or polar bears? Did you know that the fruit fly (yes, the FRUIT FLY) has been pivotal in the identification of specific genes that control certain human traits? Even more interesting is the promise that fruit fly research holds in the areas of oncology and psychiatry, but certainly not limited to those two.
Here's one more example. On NPR a few days ago, there was a woman talking about her organization. The purpose of the group was to clean and improve the National Mall in Washington, D.C. Ah, but you see, the famous TAXPAYER ADVOCATES came out of their caves to fight this stupid "porkbarrel" project, and was ultimately successful in preventing the allocation of funds to what would have been used to keep our nation's capital clean and attractive.
Does that mean that ALL projects are fruitful? Of course not. I don't doubt your ability to find wasteful spending in all the earmarks that were recently included in the latest budget that passed the Congress. However, just because it's an earmark doesn't mean it's wasteful spending.
George W. Bush's wars were certainly wasteful spending. Anyone here wanna call that porkbarrel?
Here's my bottom line: If you don't know exactly HOW the money is being used, shut up. It's really that simple. Don't saturate the airwaves and internet with needless, empty analysis when there are serious issues to be discussed. Saying "omg earmarks r bad oh noes!" is like saying "all crime is bad." What a completely fucking worthless statement to make. Well, first, what defines crime? Are all crimes equal? What if something harmless like marijuana is a crime? Is it fair to throw marijuana smokers in the "crime" bin with serial rapists and murders?
Seriously, if you have beef with how our government is using money, then you need to speak out against WASTEFUL SPENDING.