Local: An historic argument against earmarks

February 11, 2008
By Billy Dennis

Apparently, we are supposed to read this article and come away with the conclusion that earmarks — which is the government and media’s new work for “pork barrel spending” — are good. Without earmarks, we might now have wonderful things that the uber-museum in downtown Peoria

The reality, however, is that anyone who’s been paying attention will read about the $1.4 million in earmarks that have been devoted to this boondoggle will come away convinced more than ever that earmarks must be curtailed and regulated.

This project exists — and continues to drain time and and resources from more worthwhile endeavors — because the movers and shakers are convinced there’s free federal money out there. But it’s not free money. There’s no such thing as free money from government because all of it, ALL OF IT, comes from the money hardworking people are forced to give the government. Every dime that does to earmark like this one is money that could be better used supporting the sort of things government has a traditional responsibility  to provide, like roads, bridges, schools, police and fire protection and national defense. This earmark is nothing more than a back door form of corporate welfare.

The downtown super-museum is a  make work project. It’s supposed to bring in tourism dollars, but won’t. Its real purpose is to help Caterpillar build a  visitor center, just like the one John Deer has. If Cat wants the former Sears Block, let them buy it outright and build it 100 percent on their own dime. The museum project should be scaled back to it’s original purpose: A museum of local history, with local historians in charge of what is and isn’t on display.

Tags: , , ,

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

One Response to “ Local: An historic argument against earmarks ”

  1. mazr on February 11, 2008 at 8:12 pm

    “About $1.4 million for the project – which still faces a $24 million shortfall – is coming from federal earmarks that the museum received over the years.”

    Math was never my strong suit, so bear with me.

    Woith is saying that if they don’t get the $1.4 million dollar earmark the museum will not get built?

    Shouldn’t she/they be worried more about the other 24 million that they are short?

    And maybe take that as a hint as to public support of this project?