|
March madnessThe month of March is an exciting time across the nation. That certainly holds true in the nation's capital. School children on spring break flood the hallways of the office buildings and line up for special capitol tours offered by their congressional delegations. While it is frustrating when waiting in a security line to enter one of the office buildings, seeing that many young people converge on our center of government can be inspiring. At the same time the young folks roam the halls of Congress, the national convention for the association of city governments brings in thousands of locally elected city commissioners, mayors, and community members to Washington. These groups have a little different agenda when they call upon their federal officials than the students. These folks all want one thing--money. The cities want funding for new bridges, highways, community buildings, sewer systems, and probably a couple of kitchen sinks. Recently the media has placed a lot of scrutiny over "earmarks," or individual projects in federal appropriations bills. In the 2005 Highway Bill, Alaska Senators Ted Stevens and Lisa Murkowski along with House Member Don Young included two earmarks for a couple of bridges servicing rural Alaska. These projects totaled over $400 million and were labeled "bridges to nowhere." Media attention of these bridges kicked off a litany of comments from elected officials calling for the need to reign in projects. I think what is often overlooked in the discussion of earmarks is that individual project funding benefits rural areas. The majority of federal government spending programs is either based on competitive programs or formula programs that often times have a population variable included in the equations. Earmarks, or special projects, or "pork" (the most negative term) can be and in most cases are good things because they help maintain some balance. Without earmarks the mega cities of New York and Los Angeles would push the needs of smaller communities off the radar. Both the House and Senate have begun debating their respective proposals for the 2008 federal budget. Surprise, surprise, there's little money to go around. Funding for worthy projects benefiting rural states isn't the only program feeling the budget pinch. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad of North Dakota has recommended a $15 billion reserve fund for agriculture spending in the new farm bill. That's great, right? $15 billion over the baseline to write the new bill. Many members requested additional funds and now they have them. Well, there's a catch. In order to spend the $15 billion, Congress must either cut funding from other programs by the same amount or raise revenue. "Raising revenue" in D.C. talk means raising taxes. Sen. Conrad's budget proposal does not specify where the offsets could come from. Programs within agriculture or outside agriculture could be on the proposed chopping block to boost the baseline. How well do you think other committees would appreciate cuts to their programs in order to pay for an increase in agriculture? Other programs face the same budget challenges as agriculture. Ag producers certainly wouldn't appreciate cuts to commodity payments in order to pay for city sidewalks. March Madness isn't just about basketball. Finding a solution to the many funding problems in our federal government can drive anybody mad. B 4 3/26/07 4 Star NE Date: 3/21/07
Copyright/Privacy
Copyright 1995-2008. High Plains Publishers, Inc. All rights reserved. Any republishing of these pages, including electronic reproduction of the editorial archives or classified advertising, is strictly prohibited. If you have questions or comments you can reach us at High Plains Journal 1500 E. Wyatt Earp Blvd., P.O. Box 760, Dodge City, KS 67801 or call 1-800-452-7171. Email: webmaster@hpj.com |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
