Pork vs. Bureaucracy

With the federal budget deficit spiraling upward, the pork-barrel earmarking process on Capitol Hill is under fierce attack. But now some defenders are stepping into the fray. They argue that the system is absolutely necessary. Why? To save the country from the nefarious influence of federal bureaucrats.

Here's Rep. Tim Holden, D-Pa., in a letter to the editor of the Harrisburg, Pa., Patriot-News:

Earmarking, by its very nature, shifts federal dollars away from the discretion of federal agencies and puts them in American communities. Earmarked dollars generally go to projects that are short-term in nature and small in scope. If federal dollars did not go to these projects, they would be deposited in the accounts of federal agencies and be at the discretion of regional federal offices.

I strongly believe the local congressman has a better idea of the needs for their communities than some federal employee in Washington or a regional office. If we abandon the practice of earmarking, decisions will be made and millions of dollars spent, by tens of thousands of federal employees who have no accountability to taxpayers, voters, or anyone else.

And here's Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., quoted in a story in the Peoria Journal Star: "I would much rather have a voice in what goes into Illinois than some faceless federal bureaucrat who has never visited the state. I know the state better than any federal employee in this town."

That's right folks. Hundreds of congressmen jockeying and horse-trading for approval of their pet projects is better than experienced professionals--accountable to their politically appointed overseers--making rational decisions about how to most effectively distribute appropriated dollars.