Talk about a load of crap to try to justify an unconstitutional practice. The author has no idea what he is talking about and obviously never has worked in DC. Government’s budgets are based on what is known as a baseline budget. Each year’s budget starts with the prior year’s total as a zero point baseline. All line items in the budget contribute to the total continuation of the spending each year. If your department’s budget, for example, exceeds spending by 10%, that creates a new baseline. On the other hand, if you don’t spend your entire budget, your budget is cut for the next year based on the underspending. Anyone who has ever run government contracts knows this first hand. You are ‘encouraged’ to meet or exceed all your budgeted amounts. There are no rewards for coming in under budget because it reduces future budgets.
..and another point, unused budget items DO NOT become discretionary items for the Executive branch. The executive branch has their own line for a discrectionary budget. I’m not sure what orifice they pulled this out of but I have some ideas.
The entire concept of Earmarks/Pork is the antithesis of Conservative values as not only does it increase or continue over spending, but it is no-representation spending. Rarely do earmarks have anything to do with the bills they are attached to. Spending happens by whim, not by representative voting on an issue. Earmarks are also used by the government to ‘buy’ behavior- the collectivist controlling the masses by throwing back little cookies at them by funding little pet projects.
Probably the worst excuse is that it just ‘returns money to the taxpayer’. This couldn’t be further from the truth. It is simply redistribution of funds from taxpayers to pet projects. That type of thinking is what gets us into this massive collectivist attitude of the government who thinks it can redistribute funds from those who are able to those who ‘need’.
His article sure reads short to me.
The author has no idea what he is talking about and obviously never has worked in DC. Government’s budgets are based on what is known as a baseline budget. Each year’s budget starts with the prior year’s total as a zero point baseline. All line items in the budget contribute to the total continuation of the spending each year. If your department’s budget, for example, exceeds spending by 10%, that creates a new baseline. On the other hand, if you don’t spend your entire budget, your budget is cut for the next year based on the underspending. Anyone who has ever run government contracts knows this first hand. You are ‘encouraged’ to meet or exceed all your budgeted amounts. There are no rewards for coming in under budget because it reduces future budgets.
WTF does all this have to do with earmarks, exactly? Everyone reading this board knows the baseline process is ridiculous. But earmarks don't affect that--they do affect the ability of a bureaucrat to spend the money on the basis of other law or his own discretion/judgment.
..and another point, unused budget items DO NOT become discretionary items for the Executive branch. The executive branch has their own line for a discrectionary budget. I’m not sure what orifice they pulled this out of but I have some ideas.
True as that obfuscatory response of yours is, directing the spending of line items DOES limit the use of line employee judgment/discretion in determining even formula funding allotments. I don't think you can disagree with the assertion that the Administration will ultimately have far more influence over federal dollars than any conservative president given the overwhelming support for Obama in the bureaucratic ranks.
The entire concept of Earmarks/Pork is the antithesis of Conservative values as not only does it increase or continue over spending, but it is no-representation spending.
C'mon, now you're being silly. Earmarks, in our process, are representative spending at its MOST transparent. You know who directed it and who wants it--just read the campaign donor list or list of major employers in the district. You rarely get that sort of idea from reading a federal bureaucratic needs assessment, even though those can be biased as hell just on the basis of RFP language.
Rarely do earmarks have anything to do with the bills they are attached to. Spending happens by whim, not by representative voting on an issue. Earmarks are also used by the government to ‘buy’ behavior- the collectivist controlling the masses by throwing back little cookies at them by funding little pet projects.
So what would non-earmark funding at say, the Department of Education through its ARRA program be? A blow for conservatism and good government?
Probably the worst excuse is that it just ‘returns money to the taxpayer’. This couldn’t be further from the truth. It is simply redistribution of funds from taxpayers to pet projects. That type of thinking is what gets us into this massive collectivist attitude of the government who thinks it can redistribute funds from those who are able to those who ‘need’.
Taking the funds in the first place is redistribution. Forcing funds back to a district from which they were obtaining is at least, on its face, somewhat reasonable. Not that I think even the author would agree the redistribution or the process is good. He's simply making the case that, if you're already having the money stolen from your home, asking the thief to spend it in your city is at least better than taking the mugging as a normal cost of doing business.