When $17B does not matter.

Here is a recent letter I received back from Senator Roberts in response to a request to eliminate earmarks and support the McCain-DeMint Bill (which neither Kansas Senator did).

Dear Mr. XXXX:

Thank you for contacting me regarding earmark reform. I appreciate your taking the time to get in touch.

I have long supported efforts to reduce federal spending and make certain our tax dollars are used as efficiently as possible. Recently there has been a lot of negative attention surrounding the appropriations procedure known as "earmarking." Earmarking is the process by which a Member of Congress prioritizes the allocation of appropriations to their state or district. It is important to note that earmarking does not increase budget outlays. In other words, if the funds are not earmarked for a particular use, they will still be spent by the administrative department or agency according to their discretion. I have always maintained that it is more effective for an elected, accountable Member of Congress to determine spending priorities in their state or district than for an appointed bureaucrat in Washington, who may have no tie to the region, to make those decisions. In addition, it is important to note that this year, earmarks account for less than two percent of budget outlays, leaving the remaining bulk of federal spending decisions to the administrative branch.

I understand concerns over the potential for earmarking to become corrupted. That is why I have always supported transparency in the process. I disclose earmarks that I secure for the state of Kansas, and I have consistently voted in favor of bills to increase transparency in the appropriations and earmarking process. Most recently, I supported the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act (P.L. 110-81), which includes several provisions directed at increasing earmark transparency.

President Bush has also made earmark reform an executive branch priority. He recently signed an executive order directing agencies to ignore earmarks in future spending bills that are not specifically in the text of the appropriations bills. This measure provides another guarantee of transparency in the earmarking process.

Again thank you for taking the time to contact me. You may rest assured that I will continue to work for ethical appropriations procedures. If you would like more information on issues before the Senate, please visit my website at http://roberts.senate.gov. You may also sign up on my home page for a monthly electronic newsletter that will provide additional updates on my work for Kansas.

With every best wish,

Sincerely,



Pat Roberts


What really makes me angry is how insignificant $17B has become to our elected officials. To this letter, is sent the following response:

Dear Senator,

I am concerned about the response you gave me on recent letter I sent you regarding earmark reform. Here it is:

It is important to note that earmarking does not increase budget outlays. In
other words, if the funds are not earmarked for a particular use, they will
still be spent by the administrative department or agency according to their
discretion.

I have to wonder why this money has to be spent at all. If the different agencies do not need this money, which I am assuming since the Congressmen doing earmarks are spending based on what they seem to think is important, why budget these dollars in the first place? I am confident that if the spending was critical, the government agencies would make every effort to secure the funding they need.

While $17B may not be a big part of a $3T budget, it is still tax payer money and should be spent wisely. This money should not to be used to secure favor with constituents and campaign donors. $17B represents over $200 for a family of four in this country. I am 100% certain that every family can find a way to spend this money better than politicians in DC.

Doug