A June 27 editorial “Stopping earmark abuse in its tracks” concludes “The problem is not necessarily the individual earmark, but the process of earmarking as it is now being practiced on Capital Hill. It’s a politically charged process that sidesteps standard practices for evaluation and evaluation.”
WATCHDOG: And what is the alternative, allowing legislators in Harrisburg to pass on what local improvements are to be funded with state money? Are those in Harrisburg going to be better informed of a community’s needs than local elected representatives?
At least local legislators can be held responsible for their decisions when they come up for re-election.
Provided each community receives its fair share of funds, newspapers do their job of reporting (which perhaps is asking too much), and citizens speak out, some earmarking is justifiable.
