There are a host of reasons why earmarks are bad. One reason is that the congressperson or senator who wanted one may have to vote for a bad bill in order for it to get into law. Another is the backroom deals -- the secret agreements to support other earmarks -- needed in order to garner support to get the earmark passed into law.
Here's one more. The entity benefiting from the earmark might be selling a shoddy product to the U.S. Marc Thiessen tells us in Killer Earmarks that while earmarks cost us $19.6 billion last year, the real cost is much higher. He cites a case from 2006 in which Rep. David Wu, D - Oregon, got a $2 million earmark for InSport, a company in his district, to provide polyester t-shirts for the military. The only problem was that in intense heat the t-shirts could melt and bind to the skin causing disfiguring burns.
Wu stuck another million dollar earmark into a bill so the company could work on a heat resistant t-shirt.
Thiessen ends with this worthwhile bit of advice for our lawmakers:
Decisions on what company produces t-shirts for the Marines—as well as what company produces the weapons systems they use—should be made through a merit-based, competitive process, not the whims of members of Congress.
Maybe if enough people express their disapproval by voting out earmarking lawmakers that advice could get implemented.
Comments