Monday, July 23, 2012
LITTLE ROCK — Irrigation projects at Grand Prairie and Bayou Meto are at risk of losing funding because of the congressional ban on earmarks.
Together the projects would cost about $1 billion to complete, and officials are to meet on Tuesday to discuss the prospects for continuing work on the projects.
The projects are necessary because of diminishing underground aquifers that farmers have tapped for decades to water their fields.
The Southwest Times Record reports that each project was arranged so that 65 percent would be paid for by the federal government, with 35 percent covered by state and local sources. Bonds issued to pay for part of the work would be repaid by selling water to growers.
The Corps of Engineers is trying to generate other funding for the projects.
GARY SOUHEAVER BrightBulb says...
Elections have consequences. When the right-wing teabaggers took over, this was inevitable. The GOP does not like government, and want to starve it along with the people (who actually are the "government"). Crawford, Griffin, Womack and Boozman are systemically voting to keep Arkansas poor and to enrich the corporations that buy their votes. Next time, vote Democrat.
Posted 23 July 2012, 2:55 p.m. Suggest removal
MICHAEL HUCK mhck52 says...
Earmarks alone, are not bad. It's the back room politics that has become part of the process that's bad. In fact, under the Constitution, it could be considered a requirement. According to Wikipedia, "In the United States legislative appropriations process, Congress is required, by the limits specified under Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution, to pass legislation directing all appropriations of money drawn from the U.S. Treasury. This provides Congress with the power to earmark funds it appropriates to be spent on specific named projects."
Wikipedia adds that, "Earmarks have often been treated as being synonymous with "pork barrel" legislation. Despite considerable overlap, the two are not the same: what constitutes an earmark is an objective determination, while what is "pork-barrel" spending is subjective. One legislator's "pork" is another's vital project."
"In March 2010, the House Appropriations Committee implemented rules to ban earmarks to for-profit corporations. According to the New York Times, approximately 1,000 such earmarks were authorized in the previous year, worth $1.7 billion."
I would much rather have this spending earmarked in the Army Corps budget for those projects, providing we don't have to promise that some pork-barrel project gets funded to get the votes.
Posted 24 July 2012, 10:52 a.m. Suggest removal