A Good Example
Two government practices that I especially despise are congressional earmarks and federal grants to faith-based programs. An article in today's NY Times shows what happens when the two practices are combined.
In theory, it was simple: Congress gave two decommissioned Coast Guard cutters to a faith-based group in California, directing that the ships be used only to provide medical services to islands in the South Pacific.
Coast Guard records show that the ships have been providing those services in the South Pacific since the medical mission took possession of them in 1999.
In reality, the ships never got any closer to the South Pacific islands than the San Francisco Bay. The mission group quickly sold one to a maritime equipment company, which sold it for substantially more to a pig farmer who uses it as a commercial ferry off Nicaragua. The group sold the other ship to a Bay Area couple who rent it for eco-tours and marine research.
The gift of the two cutters was one of almost 900 grants Congress has made to faith-based organizations since 1987 through the use of provisions, called earmarks, that are tucked into bills to bypass normal government review and bidding procedures. [Emphasis added]
The religious organization claims it sold the cutters because it was having financial problems and simply could not afford the cost of repairing and then maintaining the ships. Yet an examination of the report the group has to file with the IRS was pretty murky when it came to the sale of the cutter and the disposition of the proceeds. One critic of the whole episode mentioned in the article that the whole transaction looked like nothing more than "flipping."
Regardless of the motives of the organization, this whole transaction points out just what is wrong with earmarks and just what is wrong with government support of religious organizations. Earmarks don't have to go through the normal channels of review, which in this case might have made clear that the usual and more acceptable disposition of ships no longer useful include sale at auction (whereby the government recoups some of the money it spent on them), inclusion in foreign aid packages, or mothballing for use in case of a future emergency.
Such a review might also have raised the obvious issue of the violation of the constitutional mandate for separation of church and state. Donations to faith-based groups all too often amounts to nothing more than outsourcing government functions to religious groups, who then use the money for evangelistic purposes hidden within the programs being promoted.
This little episode provides the perfect example of what is so fundamentally wrong with both government practices and Congress ought to do something about them.
In theory, it was simple: Congress gave two decommissioned Coast Guard cutters to a faith-based group in California, directing that the ships be used only to provide medical services to islands in the South Pacific.
Coast Guard records show that the ships have been providing those services in the South Pacific since the medical mission took possession of them in 1999.
In reality, the ships never got any closer to the South Pacific islands than the San Francisco Bay. The mission group quickly sold one to a maritime equipment company, which sold it for substantially more to a pig farmer who uses it as a commercial ferry off Nicaragua. The group sold the other ship to a Bay Area couple who rent it for eco-tours and marine research.
The gift of the two cutters was one of almost 900 grants Congress has made to faith-based organizations since 1987 through the use of provisions, called earmarks, that are tucked into bills to bypass normal government review and bidding procedures. [Emphasis added]
The religious organization claims it sold the cutters because it was having financial problems and simply could not afford the cost of repairing and then maintaining the ships. Yet an examination of the report the group has to file with the IRS was pretty murky when it came to the sale of the cutter and the disposition of the proceeds. One critic of the whole episode mentioned in the article that the whole transaction looked like nothing more than "flipping."
Regardless of the motives of the organization, this whole transaction points out just what is wrong with earmarks and just what is wrong with government support of religious organizations. Earmarks don't have to go through the normal channels of review, which in this case might have made clear that the usual and more acceptable disposition of ships no longer useful include sale at auction (whereby the government recoups some of the money it spent on them), inclusion in foreign aid packages, or mothballing for use in case of a future emergency.
Such a review might also have raised the obvious issue of the violation of the constitutional mandate for separation of church and state. Donations to faith-based groups all too often amounts to nothing more than outsourcing government functions to religious groups, who then use the money for evangelistic purposes hidden within the programs being promoted.
This little episode provides the perfect example of what is so fundamentally wrong with both government practices and Congress ought to do something about them.
Labels: Earmarks, Separation of Church and State
posted by Diane at 3:59 AM
1 Comments:
Government grants to groups that don't even pay taxes. Oh, I smell something rotten there.
Post a Comment
<< Home