Murkowski misses the mark on earmarks

I disagree with Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s recent Spectrum in the Dec. 10 issue of the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman, in which she states that banning earmarks would be a mistake.

Having written advocacy pieces and other writings with the purpose to inform and convince the reader, it is important for both the writer and the reader to begin on a level playing field before a discussion begins. By this I mean that any terms the writer uses should be defined so there is understanding from the beginning of the dialog. Here, Senator Murkowski fails.

First and foremost, she fails to identify exactly what she means when she uses the term “earmark.” In a political sense, most people understand that an earmark is a special project or funding initiated by a specific legislator for his or her constituents. It is the misuse of this process that has resulted in the current debate. In my opinion, Senator Murkowski is on the wrong side of the debate. I’ll take her arguments one at a time.

She claims that eliminating earmarks would not reduce the deficit by a penny. In the recently defeated Omnibus Spending Bill, there were $8.3 billion in earmarks. Currently, it is reported that we are borrowing 42 cents for every dollar spent to cover expenses. Therefore, the $8.3 billion in earmarks adds up to more than chump change in deficit increase. Funding for the study of how many mosquitoes a gecko eats in a day and other programs like this add a small, but significant, measurable and unnecessary amount to our annual debt.

She then claims that giving up earmarks would allow the Executive Branch or the bureaucrats to develop the budget behind closed doors. However, that is exactly what is happening under the current system, only the closed doors are in the House and the Senate. Check out how many undisclosed earmarks there are, hidden away in the tax bill. Undisclosed earmarks, as far as I can tell, are those with no particular legislator’s name attached, I suppose because disclosure would lead to embarrassment. The solution here is to open the debate in Congress and justify the spending, not exchange one closed funding exercise for another.

Her final argument is that only a Senate or a House member can make sure the special projects back home can be funded only through the use of earmarks. I completely disagree — the House and Senate still control the budgeting process through the normal give and take of building an operating budget, and that process should be with the lights on and the doors open. If the expenditure is worthy, a representative should be able to advocate and justify it openly.

Finally, her overall argument fails for the simple reason that she is on the wrong side of national sentiment on this one.

There are many representatives and senators who have had nothing to do with earmarks for their entire careers with absolutely no adverse consequences to their constituents or themselves. It is time to put an end to this corrupt and corrupting practice.

The American people deserve better and so do Alaskans. If our state cannot get the federal support if and when needed during an open, budgeting process, then our representatives have not made our case for us and we should find those who can.

Bill Bear lives in Wasilla.