| Page 2 of 2 < |
'Earmarks' by Another Name: Democracy
|
Discussion Policy
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
|
In fact, the line items that lawmakers have placed in every federal budget since the first Congress are a more democratic method of spending our tax dollars than leaving all the decisions to unelected officials of the executive branch, who too often have turned a blind eye to local needs.
Would critics who seek a moratorium on earmarks really prefer that funding decisions be made only by unelected political appointees in federal agencies? A few communities might benefit with this approach. As was demonstrated last year, however, most would not.
For fiscal 2007, Congress placed a moratorium on grants -- part of what threatened Operation Streetsweeper in Manchester -- and spending decisions were left solely to the Bush administration. What happened? The administration picked a select group of winners that got all the money -- and hundreds of smaller and less well-connected communities were left out in the cold.
In 2007, the administration awarded just seven grants for public bus transit, and half of the funding went to one city: New York. For fiscal 2008, when Congress awarded money for public transit through a reformed, open and transparent process, more than 300 agencies received grants.
Similarly, last year the administration gave only 37 police departments all of the funding for new law enforcement technology; this year, Congress awarded 560 law enforcement technology grants to communities in 42 states.
When Congress picks projects to receive federal funds, the selection process is more open, and spending is more fairly distributed. Most communities do not have the clout to play the bureaucratic game, and they need their members of Congress to fight to bring resources back home.
The truth is that congressional grants fund public projects that benefit us all. They are fairer and more democratic than the spending decisions of faceless administration staffers. They are also a badly needed investment in the future of our communities.
Dannel P. Malloy is mayor of Stamford, Conn. Robert Duffy is mayor of Rochester, N.Y. Mark Mallory is mayor of Cincinnati.


