Earmark Day on Beacon Hill

Does it matter if the word "earmark" has no meaning? (0.00 / 0)

Rob -

The "earmark" crusade entered the public consciousness due to the federal practice of adding spending requests that are stuck into bills quickly and without the normal review or debate.

But in this state, as you know, the normal process doesn't really allow much debate. Bills come to the floor after being pre-cooked behind closed doors. Amendments, of any kind, that aren't already in the pre-cooked bill, aren't taken seriously.

(Of course, this is all a bad thing.)

So if the normal process doesn't provide transparency or review, why does it matter if people want to attach things to legislation later on? If the three amendments you mention above get more scrutiny than the parts of the existing bill, which got almost none, why are they bad?

I think the real problem is the process that produced the transportation bill to begin with, not the earmarks.

---

by: edfactor @ Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 12:01:07 PM UTC

Ed (0.00 / 0)

No what happens is they negotiate the amendments behind closed doors.  You still have to put the amendments out there.  Then they take up consolidated amendments with no roll call vote.  That is what happened during the budget.  Fortunately you still need to call for what you want in the open.  Whether or not it gets in the final bill, and by what process remains secret.

Full Disclosure


http://www.redmassgroup.com/pr...

---

by: Rob "EaBo Clipper" Eno @ Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 12:06:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Let's make a distinction here (4.00 / 1)

Rob, you know I usually agree with you when it comes to spending bills but we need to make a distinction here.  When earmarks have a negative connotation, it is usually because it is tacking on wasteful and unnecessary spending, frequently beyond the scope of the underlying bill.  There is a mentality that "as long as we are spending money, we may as well spend a little more for my district."

This bill is different in that transportation infrastructure is one of the roles our government actually should and necessarily must fill.  Government was intended to provide those shared services that individuals and private enterprise cannot do efficiently (infrastructure, public safety, defense).

The funding in this bond bill begins to address some of the significant infrastructure needs in the Commonwealth.  As Representative, it is my job to ensure the needs of my district are addressed.  Any earmarks proposed as amendments (at least the ones I've seen) do not increase the total proposed spending but simply seek to ensure that important projects in our districts are prioritized in this round of funding.

It is with that understanding and intent that I filed four amendments affecting roadway improvements needed in my district.

---

by: Steven Levy @ Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 21:18:37 PM UTC