If Connecticut's earmarks could speak, what would they tell us as voters? The Connecticut legislature speaks when they propose bond money awards to towns for various undertakings that include such recent actions as:
1. New tennis courts in Seymour and Middlebury
2. Walkway along a stream in Watertown
The governor chairs the bond commission and therefore controls the agenda with the monies and items to be considered. Garnering the governor's favor is necessary, but there may be other hurdles if we could only understand the language used by the legislative speak, "earmarkise"? From the awards presented above you might ask:
1. How much did my town get in the last 10 years?
2. Compared to all towns, how did the formulation work: equitable per population by town, equitable by net worth, income tax,local property tax weighting, or what??Is there even any index?
3. What is the target per town over 10 years, assuming equitability?
Another series of questions may help justify why the state should pay for some items of dubious value, or, more importantly,those likely to be used only by a favored group. Does everyone play tennis?
Elected legislators use this bonding largess to impress the local electorate of how much care and what they have accomplished on their behalf as measured in dollars.This compassion may also come from the party leadership of the legislature for a job well done in keeping silent as the leadership exercises its agenda without the need for individual legislator contribution: keeping silent has a cost. Comparisons by towns may show an equitable distribution or not, but that is not the point. Each town can see what they get and be thankful to their elected benefactor. We may even put up a sign to memorialize their action.
If earmarks spoke more loudly we may be able to see of the monies awarded to towns:
1. Was any particular bill passed through the purchase of legislative votes by bonded projects?
2. What special interest group benefitted?
3. Can we trace awarded monies to any campaign financing mischief?
4. Are there any contractors favored locally or statewide?
5. What are the long term costs for maintenance, usage, staffing, insurance,..etc for these projects initially funded by the state?
6. How does this project's priority merit funding when the town has other priorities?
7. Has the legislator synched his sponsored project to those of the locally elected official who is closer to the town's real interests?
This potential corruption is silent because nobody really pays, the State does this for free. But, if the earmark had a louder, understandable voice we may find some surprises.The sunshine laws (freedom of information) offer a realistic approach.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
hey man, thanks for postin again, ran out of stuff to talk about. gotta read this again, never heard bout this earmark stuff, back to ya.
thanks, got to do a paper on earmarks, hard to find anything, then got this, dont get it tho, how do i get a tennis court in my town????? dont get the bonding stuff, same thing as earmark???? prof didnt talk bout that.
Mature blog, unusal for these politico topics. Hope the legislature is reading your posts. But maybe its better if there opponents do. When is the next election??? Time for a change.
call it what it is PORK. these guys and the whole process stinks. lets send all of them to jail and all the somethin for nothin people who ask for and the get the pork.
think you can rely on FOI in this state??? get real, its a sham. take up that cause to, give us little people a way to keep tabs on all those sleezes who say they care bout us.
Your blog covers general statewide concerns. You might not realize how little is available about state public finance. State financing methods have changed little in 50 years except for the unwarranted expansion of bonding scope and nonappropriated financing of nonprofits as you mention. Excellent work, keep it up.
Post a Comment