There is a long term US Congress approach where money for pet projects and donors’ companies is tied to spending bills. It is called earmarking. It is wrong. And it looks like its days are numbered.
But it is at least a more transparent approach than our government as outlined in the Hollow Men.
And amongst others I have been guilty of focusing on Bill English’s role in leaking the emails and other documents rather than on the substance. After the housing scandal he is no longer relevant. Time for a reread I think.
Good, people shouldn’t be able to buy laws!
Auckland’s SuperCity may be the largest donor payback in our history.
Winston Peters Labours coalition partner is the first one that comes to mind just think of horse racing.
Couldn’t agree more – earmarking is wrong. So is burying unrelated, controversial draconian legislation inside other seemingly innocuous bills, and making the bills themselves so lengthy that legislators have no hope of reading through all the clauses properly before votes are taken.
Doug , Winston wasn’t a coalition partner any more than The Maori party is with national. Jim Anderton was the only coalition partner with the last Labour government.
earmarking is bad mmkay.
‘cept that in the scheme of the US federal budget they don’t really cost much, and that now those things won’t get funded. Maybe they shouldn’t, who knows?
But when they spend hundreds of billions on wars funded by supplementals to the budget, there’s a bit of a cheek in crying about a few hundred thousand to keep a small town museum open.
Rortney’s super city will be an earmark paradise, except these earmarks will be of the corporate kind, and decided in secret, behind closed doors, beyond the prying eyes of the ratepayers or the meddling of the media.