Quote:
Originally Posted by Cimarron29414
In my opinion, here's how it should work: The federal government has a budget for maintaining interstate commerce. This covers roads, airports, and shipping ports in the States. This money is divided amongst the states each year based on one of two ways:
1) Population (from census data)
2) Contribution to interstate commerce (perhaps the state's percentage of GDP)
Here's the kicker: "Do with it what you will, nothing more is coming." No earmarks, no pork. It is up to the state to prioritize what they do with their federal highway funds. You want a bridge to nowhere built? No, problem: use your highway funds. No special projects at all, period.
|
All of this...and the earmark/pork talk...have little or nothing to do with the new policy to bar lobbyists from federal advisory boards and councils, the impact of which is significant on the development of federal regulations (not legislation).
It would have been better to have it issued as an Executive Order, carrying the force of law (and requiring future presidents to formally rescind it through another EO) rather than through a Presidential Memorandum...but it is a big step to minimizing the impact of lobbyists.
---------- Post added at 10:01 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:40 AM ----------
But.....if the interest is continuing with the earmark/pork discussion.....most of those have less to do with the influence of lobbyists and more to do with responding to constituents by funding projects in the home state/districts....some certainly worthy of federal funding and others not so much.
I dont think the lobbyists for the road builders association or the civil engineers association had much to do with the bridge to nowhere.