Agreeing with Congressman Souder
Posted by Jeff Pruitt - 3/19/10 @ 9:08 am - Filed Under National Politics
Since it’s a rare occurrence I thought I would point out two recent instances in which I whole-heartily agree with Congressman Mark Souder. The first is this silly notion of “earmark reform”. People seem to think this will reduce spending - it won’t. All it does is change who hands out the money, elected officials or federal bureaucrats. Souder gets this distinction:
Souder said the system should be changed, but not all spending decisions should be made by the federal agencies, which are run by the president’s team.
Also, he said, ending earmarks – whether it’s for a year or indefinitely – won’t cut federal spending.
“It’s important for people to understand all sides agree (that) to eliminate earmarks will not save the taxpayer one dollar,” he said. “This is about the process of how you earmark and who earmarks.”
Next, was his recent questioning of education secretary Arne Duncan where he points out that his plans are not going to work, because as I previously pointed out here at FWP, they are all stick and no carrot:
The congressman asked about the narrow approach the proposed law would take in addressing the lowest 5 percent of schools, including plans to fire administrators and replace most of the teachers.
“Why would anyone ever choose to teach in one of these schools if they think there is a 50 percent chance they are going to be fired?” Souder asked. “Why would a principal go there? How are we assured these same schools are going to be measured fairly and get the improvements?”
Duncan told Souder that there are “heroic” teachers and principals who want to go into struggling schools and make a difference, and that he’s seen the results of their work in some schools.
“I agree with that wholeheartedly, and we have schools inside Fort Wayne where teachers actually move to those schools,” Souder said. “But the bottom line is, some of those schools – where they’ve really put their effort in – they get marginal change, even working weekends and so. And those highly motivated teachers didn’t move to those schools thinking 50 percent of them could be fired within a certain number of years.”
The congressman told Duncan that the success stories often could be attributed to factors outside of instruction, including an influx of new students. He also questioned how long those turnaround schools could sustain the improvement.
In an interview after the hearing, Souder said he’s also concerned that the consequences for struggling schools – firing the principal and most of the staff, transforming it to a different model, closing it or converting to a charter school – are too prescriptive. States need more flexibility to find the right approach, he said.
Comments
2 Responses to “Agreeing with Congressman Souder”
Leave a Reply
Jeff,
I completely disagree with both you and Congressman Souder on earmark reform. The only portion of your statement I agree with is that you are earmark spending is a relatively small part of the Federal budget.
That being said it is a corrupt practice that is designed to protect incumbents and help them get re-elected. The entire process is corrupt and should be abolished because it helps incumbents retain their seats and the entire process is rife with fraud.
Mike
Mike,
I can’t believe I’m going to waste 30 seconds defending Mark Souder but here goes:
I agree with this to some extent. However, if you turn all the money over to federal bureaucrats I think the problem has the potential to be even worse. The money will still go to a select few it will just be to those the executive branch chooses or those congressional leaders with the most pull.
At the end of the day I don’t think it’s that bad of an idea to give each congressional district some discretionary money. I actually disagreed with the decision to remove the discretionary money from individual councilmembers and give it all to the mayor. It’s the same idea.
The process could definitely be improved - increased transparency, presidential line item veto and maybe a more technocratic approach to disbursing funds. But I don’t think eliminating earmarks will have nearly the impact that some people think.