Earmarks help state level the playing field
The following Op-Ed by Rep. Young has appeared in the Anchorage Daily News
Washington,
Mar 31 -
It's that time of year again; the time of year where communities from around the state submit requests for federal funding for their projects of interest and I, in turn, make those appropriation requests to be included in the Fiscal Year 2011 budget. This year, I received 289 requests totaling $1.4 billion from various groups, communities, and boroughs in Alaska, as well as from the State of Alaska.
Republicans in Congress have declared a moratorium on making these requests, but I believe that to do that would be turning my back on the state that I love while handing over control to President Obama and his appointed government officials. I am elected to serve my constituents and as long as they continue to request federal funding for their projects of interest, then I will continue to do my best to accommodate them.
I have always been vocal in my use of an open and honest earmark process, and this year is no different. Appropriations earmarks are the way members can take care of their district's needs and priorities. One of the most misunderstood earmark "facts" is that they add to the deficit; they do not. Earmarks are not appropriated in addition to a budget but are funds designated from agencies included within the budget, and account for less than one percent of the budget. Earmarks are Congress' way to direct a federal agency to fund and execute priorities that citizens have sought, members of Congress have considered and approved, and the president has enacted.
If the budgeting was left solely to the government agencies, it would only cover the needs of big cities, in highly populated states, while the unique needs that often come in the less populated states like Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, and especially our state of Alaska, would be put on the back burner. Members of Congress have the Constitutional responsibility to initiate, review and develop legislation to balance the good of our nation with the needs of the individual states. One of my responsibilities as your elected official is to ensure that Alaska's priorities are considered in the appropriations process, and funded to the extent that the budget allows.
Consistently we hear people say that Alaska gets "more than its share," but that couldn't be further from the truth. Our state is incredibly young and was not part of the U.S. in the mid-1930s when President Roosevelt was laying the groundwork for our country's infrastructure by spending money to put schools, hospitals, and highways in place. Alaska's infrastructure system is not nearly as developed as the other states in our union, and for this reason, we are constantly looking to improve upon it. We are still playing catch-up with the rest of the country, and that takes funding.
Additionally, what people don't seem to understand is that the federal government is essentially Alaska's landlord; nearly two-thirds of our lands are federally owned, and held within those lands are some of the world's largest reserves of natural resources. If we were allowed to manage our own land and responsibly develop our resources the way the state would like, and not have to constantly fight frivolous lawsuits by environmental groups, we would be flush in our own state wealth and not need to lean on the government the way we do now.
Over the past few years, through earmarking, I have secured money for a youth homeless shelter, a parent training organization that works with Alaska families of children with disabilities, the Salvation Army, a program to train doctors in rural areas, the study of renewable energy resources, ecosystem restoration ... the list goes on and on. And never once have I tried to hide any of these earmarks.
I am proud of the assistance I have provided to my constituents, and I will continue my work at their behest.
[Anchorage Daily News]
