Some Spending Earmarks Detailed

The question to me is: why should the Federal government be doing most of what it is doing? If localities like pools, great. Let them pay for it. If they want an athelitic facility, great. Let them pay for it. The problem isn't just earmarks, it is the problem with massive ranges of Federal spending. It was no different for government spending on police or even responsiveness to local disasters. The benefits of most of these expenditures are easily obtained the state effected. Given that there is no reason that the costs couldn't be also.

1,500 new earmarks at a cost of some $900 million.

They include $500,000 for a scenic trail in Monterey, California; $1.5 million for the William Faulkner Museum in Oxford, Mississippi; $500,000 for a swimming pool in Columbus, Ohio; and $500,000 for an athletic facility in Yucaipa, California. Several of these projects, including the athletic facility, have been promoted by Bill Lowery's lobbying firm--the very firm in the middle of the Jerry Lewis probe.

On Wednesday Jeff Flake of Arizona and other Members offered amendments to strip the earmarks, but they lost those floor votes by a wide margin. Our favorite: a $500,000 earmark for renovating a swimming pool in Banning, California. The same pool had already received a $250,000 earmark in each of the previous two years. Mr. Flake's floor proposal to strike the swimming hole subsidy got all of 61 votes. . . . .