Member Items and Earmarks - On the road to Sodom & Gomorrah
The Times Union had a story a while back (June 11) about member items. This is a state legislature thing, but Congress has something similar called "Earmarks".
Member items and earmarks are handouts from incumbents to special interests. I use the term special interests broadly here. It can be money for a local YMCA. But basically what happens is the incumbents get to go around their district handing out cash. Not their money by the way, but taxpayer money.
In some cases this money is used to create high-paying no-show jobs for flunkies. That's something that gets the press upset. They seem less upset by handouts to local groups like the Y, but they miss the point of it. The incumbents are buying votes with our money.
I remember in the 2004 campaign the a local YMCA had a dinner and had the incumbent in my race as the Keynote speaker. I asked for an opportunity to speak as well, and was told that it wasn't a political event. I thought about going and campaigning in the room, but decided that would strike people as in poor taste. I did it once at a Chamber breakfast where he was speaking, but that was a less formal function. Later on during the campaign I commented on the effect of the incumbent's proposed minimum wage increase and its effect on the Y and other local non-profits, who are more likely to pay minimum wage (I'll do another post on minimum wage down the road). The Executive Director of the Y then wrote a letter to the editor criticizing me for my comments.
Why did he inject himself into politics like that? Because he was hoping to get an earmark or some other kind of plum from the incumbent. But he was right. It wasn't about politics. For him it was about money - money for his organization that it needs because of the difficult economic environment they face (especially since minimum wage will increase soon). Unfortunately, while it wasn't about politics for him, his actions (typical of local organizations) helped the incumbent look good to supporters of the Y, and had an adverse effect (a trivial one) on my campaign.
And of course there's a more fundamental problem with member items and earmarks. Why are incumbents the right people to choose where such money should go? That money should stay in the hands of taxpayers, who are better placed to decide where to be charitable. Certainly an earmark to a local Y is inoffensive, but plenty of that money goes to places that are objectionable (like the job for the crony).
I oppose the earmark process and will vote with Congressman Flake to eliminate them. The same should be done with member items in the state legislature. I challenge Mike McNulty and Tom Raleigh in my race, along with John Sweeney, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Eric Sundwall in the 20th district, to make the same pledge. I believe Sundwall, as a Libertarian, already agrees with this position.
Member items and earmarks are handouts from incumbents to special interests. I use the term special interests broadly here. It can be money for a local YMCA. But basically what happens is the incumbents get to go around their district handing out cash. Not their money by the way, but taxpayer money.
In some cases this money is used to create high-paying no-show jobs for flunkies. That's something that gets the press upset. They seem less upset by handouts to local groups like the Y, but they miss the point of it. The incumbents are buying votes with our money.
I remember in the 2004 campaign the a local YMCA had a dinner and had the incumbent in my race as the Keynote speaker. I asked for an opportunity to speak as well, and was told that it wasn't a political event. I thought about going and campaigning in the room, but decided that would strike people as in poor taste. I did it once at a Chamber breakfast where he was speaking, but that was a less formal function. Later on during the campaign I commented on the effect of the incumbent's proposed minimum wage increase and its effect on the Y and other local non-profits, who are more likely to pay minimum wage (I'll do another post on minimum wage down the road). The Executive Director of the Y then wrote a letter to the editor criticizing me for my comments.
Why did he inject himself into politics like that? Because he was hoping to get an earmark or some other kind of plum from the incumbent. But he was right. It wasn't about politics. For him it was about money - money for his organization that it needs because of the difficult economic environment they face (especially since minimum wage will increase soon). Unfortunately, while it wasn't about politics for him, his actions (typical of local organizations) helped the incumbent look good to supporters of the Y, and had an adverse effect (a trivial one) on my campaign.
And of course there's a more fundamental problem with member items and earmarks. Why are incumbents the right people to choose where such money should go? That money should stay in the hands of taxpayers, who are better placed to decide where to be charitable. Certainly an earmark to a local Y is inoffensive, but plenty of that money goes to places that are objectionable (like the job for the crony).
I oppose the earmark process and will vote with Congressman Flake to eliminate them. The same should be done with member items in the state legislature. I challenge Mike McNulty and Tom Raleigh in my race, along with John Sweeney, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Eric Sundwall in the 20th district, to make the same pledge. I believe Sundwall, as a Libertarian, already agrees with this position.
posted by Albany Lawyer at 7:53 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home