|
Election 2008: Tom Ledue calls for a one-year moratorium. Rep. Tom Allen calls it a gimmick. The two candidates for the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate, Rep. Tom Allen and Tom Ledue, tangled Monday over the idea of imposing a one-year moratorium on earmarks as a way to control federal spending. Earmarks are funding allocations that members of Congress tuck into appropriations bills – often for specific projects in their home districts. The practice has drawn criticism as wasteful pork-barrel spending. Its defenders say that lawmakers understand the needs of their local communities and are therefore in a better position to determine spending priorities than bureaucrats in Washington. Monday’s debate over earmarks came during a meeting of the editorial board of the Portland Press Herald/Maine Sunday Telegram. Ledue, an educator who lives in Sanford, argued that a one-year moratorium would allow the federal government to devise a better system of divvying up money. Allen, a congressman from Portland, said the idea is a “gimmick” that’s being driven mostly by conservative Republicans. The two Democrats are competing in their party’s June 10 primary. The winner will challenge Republican Sen. Susan Collins on Nov. 4. Allen, who has been in the House of Representatives since 1996, said that the Democrats have improved the earmark process since they gained control of Congress early last year. He noted that when members of Congress request earmarks, their names are now made public, and said that spending on earmarks has fallen by about 40 percent since 2006, when Republicans were in control. Allen argued that if earmarks were eliminated, the White House’s Office of Management and Budget would gain more control over the federal budget process, and officials there lack knowledge about the needs of local areas. He also defended the earmarks he has sought for the state of Maine, including money for a Gorham bypass road, conservation projects, research and development, and to protect beachfront homes at Camp Ellis in Saco. “I mean, those things are critically important as a way to stimulate the local economy and meet local needs,” Allen said. He said that earmarks have gotten a bad reputation because of a small number of undeserving projects – such as the so-called “Bridge to Nowhere” in Alaska. “There are always a few projects that are easily – you know, once they’re in the public eye – you can easily pooh-pooh them as being frivolous,” he said. Ledue responded by arguing that projects like the “Bridge to Nowhere” diminish citizens’ faith in government. He said that a one-year moratorium could give rise to a system that is less about the pet projects of individual members of Congress. “I’m not calling for an absolute end to earmarks,” Ledue said. “But we got to ask, Why is it that these things have burgeoned to a place that they are, even with reductions? There are still thousands and thousands of them. And to what end?”" The debate before the editorial board marked a rare joint appearance by the two Democrats. Allen has turned down invitations for a radio debate and a TV debate with Ledue, saying that those events conflicted with other commitments on his schedule. Staff Writer Kevin Wack can be contacted at 791-6365 or at: kwack@pressherald.com |
|
|
|
