To earmark or not

[Free Press Editor Joe Spear]

Interesting earmark story in Friday's edition. Rep. John Kline still refuses to go for them. His constituents not so sure. Is principle important in this unfair game? http://is.gd/rMHY

[Bob Jentges]

Interesting earmark story in Friday's edition. Rep. John Kline still refuses to go for them. His constituents not so sure. Is principle important in this unfair game? http://is.gd/rMHY

I read the stories, including what I considered the reporters not so objective view of Kline's position, and made a comment regarding same. To me, principle is always inportant.

[Dan Conner]

Interesting earmark story in Friday's edition. Rep. John Kline still refuses to go for them. His constituents not so sure. Is principle important in this unfair game? http://is.gd/rMHY

Joe, I don't know that the game is unfair. You seem to make a value judgement there. I don't know enough about earmarks, other than the spot news stories on the media. Some do a lot of good and others don't. There are equally strident Congressional positions on both sides of the issue. I think there has to be an informed assessment of earmarks and the process before definitive judgements can be made.

I do know that some earmarks have been abusive and considered a returned political favor...that is bad. Others have been to fund needed projects in a district or state. I think some of the metropolitan mass transit rail project was funded through earmarks. Also, I think some of the highway projects here in Southern Minnesota were funded by earmarks..that is good.

I don't think sweeping judgements about earmarks is appropriate. I think it is important to consider what good they are for. Recently, an Alaska volcano study received an earmark and was critically judged in the press, but now a volcano is threatening to erupt in Alaska, making the study timely. Also, I believe there is an element of trust we must place in our representatives. There is a tendency to judge earmarks in other districts as wasteful, but those in your own district as necessary.

I think Democrats should get a lot of credit for mandating that Congressional names be attached to all earmarks. Then, the public will at least know who proposed them. That is a small deterrent for unnecessay earmarks. Maybe it would help to list abusive earmarks and then judge them one-by-one before we make sweeping generalized judgements.

[Free Press Editor Joe Spear]

Bob. I'm not sure what the reporter's "not so objective view" means but I'd like to hear more of how you draw that conclusion.
Dan. Earmarks good and bad, no doubt. Can we come up with a better system? How can we devise a system that in my estimation, many average citizens think is perhaps not entirely fair, or honest, and create a system that rates projects by value and creates more confidence in this earmark process among the citiens?

[Dan Conner]

Bob. I'm not sure what the reporter's "not so objective view" means but I'd like to hear more of how you draw that conclusion.
Dan. Earmarks good and bad, no doubt. Can we come up with a better system? How can we devise a system that in my estimation, many average citizens think is perhaps not entirely fair, or honest, and create a system that rates projects by value and creates more confidence in this earmark process among the citiens?


I really don't know. While I am not certain of this, the earmark process is a recent phenomenon (at least when compared to the history of our country). I believe it started because of a general reluctance of Congressmen to vote for the local projects of another. Consequently, many, if not all, of these projects never happened. Congressmen represent only a 1/435th share of the country and have a tendency to view things locally.

I believe the earmark process began so these "needed" local projects could be funded without votes of the entire Congress. I think people have to study our country's situation before earmarks and after earmarks and decide when things were better for our country, and then set a course of action.

I do think the Democrats have interjected important change to the process by attaching names of the earmark sponsor to the earmark in the bill. Then, that information is readily available to the public and the "bright sunlight." Maybe we should give this new alteration of the earmark process a chance to work and see if it improves the process.

I think the perception of the earmark process is simplistic and easily negative. People view the earmarks of others as waste, but theirs as all important. Tha't's like the polls for Congressmen. People feel Congresspeople are generally corrupt and incompetent, except for their Congressperson. So, maybe the problem is not the Congress, but the public's lack of understanding. We definitely need more civics education. Invariably, things are NEVER as simple as first viewed. There are too many opinions without research and quest for the truth.

[Bob Jentges]

Bob. I'm not sure what the reporter's "not so objective view" means but I'd like to hear more of how you draw that conclusion.
Dan. Earmarks good and bad, no doubt. Can we come up with a better system? How can we devise a system that in my estimation, many average citizens think is perhaps not entirely fair, or honest, and create a system that rates projects by value and creates more confidence in this earmark process among the citiens?

Joe, I submitted this comment in the electronic edition after Mark's 4/9/09 article:

---"Although the reporter obviously does not, I agree with Rep.Kline on this one. And I would not be surprised that if a poll of the citizens of [Le Sueur] were taken it would reflect that the majority are happy [Le Sueur] is located just where it is."

Now back to your specific question of me Joe, here are a few quotes from Mark's article that I viewed as "not so objective...", or maybe better said biased against Congressman Kline:

---If Le Sueur had been founded a mile or so to the southwest or to the northwest, the city would PROBABLY HAVE BEEN IN THE GAME." (My Emphasis)

---A bit farther southwest and Le Sueur would have been in Nicollet County--
which is SERVED by Congressman TIM WALZ...A short distance to the northwest and the city would have been in Sibley County, represented by Congressman COLLIN PETERSON..." (My Emphasis)

---Instead, Le Sueur is where it is--Le Sueur County in the 2nd District, WITH Congressman John Kline. (My Emphasis)

Since Mark's article was not on the opinion page I think it would have been better if it had been void of any biase, which I completly understand is not easy to do.

[Dan Conner]

Bob. I'm not sure what the reporter's "not so objective view" means but I'd like to hear more of how you draw that conclusion.
Dan. Earmarks good and bad, no doubt. Can we come up with a better system? How can we devise a system that in my estimation, many average citizens think is perhaps not entirely fair, or honest, and create a system that rates projects by value and creates more confidence in this earmark process among the citiens?Joe--

P.S. I don't know if it is possible to come up with a better earmark system. Perceptions of the process are wildly different. So, making a change to please some, will only anger others. I think more eduction and openess of the process is necessary. Also, the media has changed from a public educator to an opinion setter. I think that needs to change to stop some of the manipulation of public opinion.

[Jonathan Kovaciny]

Earmarks are how Congress allocates money that has already been spent. The 'pie' is on the table already, and it's Congress' job to determine how to slice it and who gets what pieces. I do not fault my Congressman for requesting a slice for my district, since I've already paid for my slice (through taxes) but I do have a problem with him ordering up a bigger pie. I would like to see smaller pies and smaller slices. Keep the money closer to home to begin with. Why do we send billions of dollars up to the federal level so they can fight about it and give it back (usually with strings attached)? Why not just pay taxes locally and decide what to do with our own money?

[Dan Conner]

Earmarks are how Congress allocates money that has already been spent. The 'pie' is on the table already, and it's Congress' job to determine how to slice it and who gets what pieces. I do not fault my Congressman for requesting a slice for my district, since I've already paid for my slice (through taxes) but I do have a problem with him ordering up a bigger pie. I would like to see smaller pies and smaller slices. Keep the money closer to home to begin with. Why do we send billions of dollars up to the federal level so they can fight about it and give it back (usually with strings attached)? Why not just pay taxes locally and decide what to do with our own money?

My understanding is that earmarks don't allocate money, it is an additional budget request. It grows the pie, using your analogy. It does not reapportion the pie, but instead is a request for a bigger pie, then to be divided with the special designation for a local project.

I agree that we all would like to see a smaller pie, but it would be hard to stop some of the Congresspeople from sending money home for pet projects. Also, I imagine it would be very hard to get Congress to vote against earmarks since the vast majority use the process.

I agree earmarks can ba an abusive method of funding local projects, but there are times the money is needed. For example, I think Cong Walz funded some Highway 14 improvements through earmarks. Without the earmark, the improvement probably wouldn't have happened. So, would it have been better with a smaller pie of Highway 14 being fixed? There is no easy winner either way.