Question, Mark?

The time has come for us to undertake curb the influence of money in politics.  No, I do not mean limiting campaign spending or removing the scourge of lobbyists from the halls of government.  Rather, I propose the removal of legislative earmarks in the budgeting process.

Those of you underprivileged souls who’ve never “experienced” a MA budget season won’t truly understand my explanation.  But, the basics you need to understand is that each legislator walks into ‘their’ meeting with Ways & Means possessed with the same thing…10 pet projects that benefit their district or worse still their “constituency.” This top 10 list represents the items necessary, or so the legislator believes, for his/her reelection.  They range from one-ofs, expenditures that are a one time thing, to long-running recurring expenditures that we taxpayers fund for years on end.

Disregard the benefit of the project, it could be a fully funded town gazebo or horse patrols for a state park, the end result is an encumbrance of money for a project dedicated for a single population.  It shifts the budgeting sessions focus from on broad ideals of how the state should spend its limited resources, to ones focused on horse-trading.  Moreover, it focuses the debate on the needs of the few at the cost (and expense) of the benefit of the many.

Now you may ask, why does this matter, this is the basis of politics.  But, I contend that we could be better, we could require our legislature to pass broad based funding mechanisms, funding government in its entirety rather than specific projects.  Such action would relieve the legislature of having to produce “district-specific” projects to get reelected, but provide detailed understanding into the costs of the state’s governance.  Ultimately, a ban on earmarks would increase legislative accountability over state finances by providing the members broad-based methods for “spending cuts” without risk of significant harm to their constituents.