As we all know, names matter. “Pro-choice” sounds so much more palatable than “Pro-abortion,” and “Pro-life” is much more positive than “Anti-abortion.” We’ve weathered “The Patriot Act” and seen through “Hometown Democracy.” All soldiers in harm’s way are now “heroes.” And many of us wince at football players being referenced as “warriors.” Recall that the FCATs were sold under the rubric of “accountability.” Anybody against “accountability”?
The tradition even predates marketing mavens, ad agencies and focus groups. “Crusaders” sounds downright righteous.
Which brings us, however circuitously, to “earmarks.” Also known as “turkeys” in Florida.
Last week Sen.-elect Marco Rubio signed on to a well-publicized effort by Tea-Partying Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., to seek a ban on budget earmarks among Republican senators. “I think earmarks are bad for our country,” explained Rubio.
With the “T (trillion) word” now operable when talking about the ($1,290,000,000,000) federal deficit, it’s likely that congressional “earmark” savings would be largely symbolic. But more to the point, such spending decisions would become the purview of the executive branch, which obviously wouldn’t know states’ legitimate needs the way the states themselves would. Most of the 9,500 “earmarks,” however demonized, are not “bridges to nowhere.”
So here’s a suggestion for those making the challenging case for keeping “earmarks” as a state prerogative — and finally getting serious about reining in their abuse. Get rid of the name. Sounds too much like earwax anyhow. Wouldn’t the taxpayers of any given state want their senators and representatives looking out for them and their interests by making the best possible case for “State Priority Funds”? Turkeys, no. Pork, no. Priorities, yes.