Times Editorial : The American way
Posted on Sunday, September 24, 2006
Everyone remembers the closing speech from "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. "Accused of wrongdoing and just one speech away from being kicked out of office, Jeff Smith (Jimmy Stewart ) saves his job and reputation by noting that any government that fights to protect the public interest and believes at every turn in open government - that this is the stuff honest nations are made of. For our purposes, though, there's a more important speech made in the same movie. As spoken by Sen. Joseph Paine (Claude Rains ) the speech plays as a tacit apology for graft. Look closer, though, and you'll see that the same scene essentially comes across as an apology for compromise, too. Compromise can't be un-American, can it ? After all, American government was born of a compromise. Get out your history books and read about the Connecticut Compromise if you don't believe us. Fine then. Compromising our beliefs is unavoidable (in real life anyway ) if serving the greater good is the goal. If so, then what are we to make of earmarking - the practice by which legislators set aside funds for a specific purpose. Certainly earmarking is a popular practice. Citizens Against Government Waste estimate that earmarks cost the American public $ 27. 3 billion in 2004, up from $ 10. 1 billion a decade ago. Sen. John McCain estimates that pork-barrel projects cost Uncle Sam roughly $ 47 billion last year. All of us knows how it works. Members of Congress come to the table with projects in hand - but instead of defending the use of taxpayer dollars for each project, its easier to just sign off on the great mass of proposals. It's certainly more popular, as legislators are sure to note any favor that helps them get re-elected. In large measure, it's certainly more realistic. Congress doesn't meet often enough as it is - but when they do, arguing over the thousands of appropriation earmarks that pile up every year would surely bring the wheels of government to a total standstill. Obviously that's not a very good option either. And so many of the requests receive the funds they sought. Folks like McCain hate earmarks. (He actually referred to them as "disgraceful"earlier this year. ) Opponents believe slipping funding requests for pet projects that benefit their home districts is just this side of unethical. It's hard to debate this point, especially when an appropriation is especially wasteful (Alaska's "Bridge to Nowhere "comes to mind. ) We venture to guess most Americans, if asked, aren't fans of the practice - except when it benefits them, of course. Last week the Americans for Prosperity Foundation had plans to visit the University of Arkansas so that it could protest $ 3. 5 million worth of federal funding that got the Arkansas Center for Space and Planetary Sciences off the ground. Odds are students who benefit from its existence don't see the program as an example of corrupt politicians at work. Quite the contrary, especially since some of these young minds might end up running NASA one of these days. And yet what exactly is this anti-earmarking foundation fighting for ? According to President Tim Phillips, its 52, 000 members are "committed to advancing every individual's right to economic freedom and opportunity. "Open government ? Sounds an awful like Mr. Smith to us. For his part, Third District Rep. John Boozman said recently that he supports legislation that would require House members to attach their names to earmark requests. Yes, that sounds nice - but until we know that every earmark that finds its way into an appropriations bill has been thoughtfully judged and questioned, doubts about the earmarking system will continue. Worse, without serious reforms, we're afraid more "Bridges to Nowhere "are right around the corner. For us, this is unacceptable. The great majority of our representatives, Democrat and Republican alike, are honest employees who act to protect American's interests at every turn. But we're increasingly afraid they, too, are victims of a broken system. Our representatives are right to fight on behalf of the voters and business interests who got them elected in the first place. But they also owe to the entire country to create bills and budgets that are little more than lip service to notions of "good government."
FEEDBACK:
Something to say about this topic? Submit a Letter to the Editor online