The arrogance of our Congressmember Gary Ackerman never ceases to amaze.
His latest rant concerns the potential demise of his proposed $9 million dollar earmark for the Helen Keller National Center for Deaf-Blind Adults in Sands Point.
To help balance a $1.7 trillion shortfall this year’s federal budget and begin reducing our $14 trillion plus long term debt, Republicans in Congress have proposed the elimination of all new earmarks. This would save billions of dollars.
Ackerman’s new proposed earmark in Federal Fiscal Year 2011 would be the same amount as in 2010. In the wacky liberal world of Ackerman, this would amount to a cut as costs for the center went up. Source: Newsday “On Long Island No earmarks may mean more cuts” by Reid J. Epstein – Feb. 15).
Millions of American families are balancing their respective household budgets making due with less when one of two wage earners are unemployed or subject to a pay cut at work to save their job. Many are forgoing any wage increases even as household costs go up.
Likewise, millions of American businesses are balancing their budgets with less income. Where is it written in stone that funding must automatically increase each year just because costs go up?
Any good manager in the public or private sector can usually find a way to balance a budget making due with less yet providing the same level of service. The overall operating budget for the Helen Keller National Center is far greater than the potential loss of a $9 million earmark. The majority of their funding comes from voluntary donations made by individuals, foundations and corporations, not Ackerman’s earmark.
Ackerman in the article went on to say “Without earmarks, federal bureaucrats will control more of how such money is distributed nationwide.”
This is a disappointing justification of earmarking based on his belief that he knows the needs of his constituents better than faceless Washington bureaucrats. His comments are an insult to the millions of hard working federal civil servants. It is reminiscent of the late racist Democratic Governor of Alabama and presidential candidate George Wallace who would rail at “Pointed Headed Washington Bureaucrats.”
Similarly, today Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid uses the same derogatory rhetoric when referring to “Green eye shaded Washington bureaucrats” in defending bringing home the bacon to his home state of Nevada.
Most federal aid programs are distributed on a formula basis to states, counties and cities with local recipients. Washington bureaucrats don’t decide how to spend these funds. Civil servants want to make sure dollars are spent for eligible projects, completed on time and within budget with taxpayers receiving the full benefits. Perhaps career civil servants have the independence and technical expertise to do a better job in the distribution of funds and to protect the interests of taxpayers in avoiding any waste, fraud or abuse than members of Congress.
Every year, ordinary Americans combine to donate billions of dollars to thousands of charities such as Helen Keller National Center.
My wife and I make small voluntary donations ranging from $25 to $100 to many such charities. Why do elected officials such as Ackerman, see the need to use tax revenues to fund their own donations to charities?
These are known as member items and in too many cases have in the past really been pork barrel projects. Ackerman makes a comfortable salary of $175,000 per year plus all the benefits of being a member of Congress.
This includes free mailings to constituents, a great health plan, travel, discounted meals and other perks paid for by taxpayers.
Ordinary constituents can only dream of these things. Why can’t Ackerman make his own personal direct charitable donation to Helen Keller National Center?
Just how much money does Ackerman personally donate to charities each year?
Ackerman could dip into his excessive surplus campaign funds to make a donation. He could also host a fundraiser asking some of his several hundred regular campaign donators to support Helen Keller National Center. In addition to financial contributions, millions of Americans also donate time each week to perform volunteer work at their favorite charity. Has Ackerman ever considered doing the same?
Talk is cheap, but individual voluntary actions such as donating money or time speak volumes.
Larry Penner
Great Neck
