December 22, 2006

Earmarks Not the Big Problem, Blackburn Says

Today we are debating a federal spending issue - whether earmarks and special project funding ought to be banned and that money turned over to agency bureaucrats to spend. Some argue that giving bureaucrats control and eliminating all earmarks would help us balance the budget. The facts, though, show that earmark reform has been used as a red herring to distract attention from the larger problem. In fiscal year 2006, we spent $33 billion on earmarks while mandatory spending consumed $1.4 trillion. Are earmarks a problem? Indeed, some are, but not all. The figures reveal the reality. Mandatory spending programs that receive automatic funding increases are the crux of the problem. We are nibbling around the edges by focusing so much attention on earmarks and so little on mandatory spending. - U.S. Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tennessee, in an op-ed in the Friday Tennessean that makes a lot more sense than the paper's own editorial on the subject.

U.S. Rep. John Tanner also weighs in with an op-ed that seems to say, "Earmarks are bad except the earmarks I put in the budget."

And while it opines against earmarks this week, last week The Tennessean was bemoaning the earmarks moratorium because it put $330 million in federal funds for a slew of Tennessee projects, including some $160 million in Middle Tennessee, "in danger."