by Rep. Roy Blunt, Human Events editorial: That the authors of our nation's governing document gave the House of Representatives exclusive authority to bring forth legislation related to revenue was no accident. The House, after all, was designed to be the more responsive, more accountable of the two chambers -- especially when it came to the business of raising and spending the hard-earned money of the American taxpayer. But it's precisely this element of accountability that's come under withering attack from Democratic corners this year. . . . the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee simplified the process dramatically by declaring himself a one-man selection committee in charge of determining how much of your money will be spent through earmarks this year, and to whom it will be sent.These funding decisions are among the most important and controversial items we deal with each year, and for good reason. After all, the question of how to allocate the hard-earned money that millions of American families pay in taxes deserves the same sober and serious deliberation by members of Congress that families give to creating their own budgets around the dinner table. That's why it's so important that the rules of the budgeting and appropriations process be well-defined and understood -- and the process itself easy to monitor from the outside, and difficult to obfuscate or manipulate on the inside.
Unfortunately, that basic level of transparency will not be part of the annual appropriations process in Congress this year. Instead, one man will decide which of the thousands of spending requests will receive support, and which will not. And once that's determined, that one man will draft a series of conference reports with no opportunity for amendment by elected members of the House. The potential for abuse in proceeding along a course this invulnerable to scrutiny is obvious. . . . Just to give you a sense, under their plan spending projects couldn't be challenged on the floor as long as a list of earmarks -- even an inaccurate or incomplete one -- is included in the bill. Even more disturbing, a bill slathered with pork can be certified as "earmark-free" if the corresponding money is dropped into a slush fund without identifying where it's going. Of course, the payouts will be the same as soon as the names, places and amounts are added in conference. But gone will be any opportunity to debate the merits of that funding in an open, honest, and transparent manner. . . . [Read More]
Tags: Congressional Pork, corruption, earmarks, graft, Human Events, pork, pork-barrel spenders, Roy Blunt, US House To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
0 comments:
Post a Comment