Editorial
President Obama's signature on the 2009 spending bill Tuesday means that federal largesse will soon flow to nearly every corner of the land. Whether Obama, who strongly criticized congressional earmarks throughout his presidential campaign, should be held responsible for a budget crafted largely before he took office is a debate for another day. So is the question of whether earmarks themselves should be outlawed. The 9,000 earmarks in the 2009 spending bill are a done deal. Some are justifiable and some aren't.

New Hampshire's congressional delegation - minus Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, who didn't get to Washington in time to play the annual earmark game - landed almost $34 million for projects in the state. None of the earmarks, many of which were listed in a story by the Monitor's Dan Barrick on Wednesday, are as egregious as the one for Alaska's Bridge to Nowhere or the $4 million that Pennsylvania Rep. John Murtha nabbed to realign what amounts to a driveway leading to a small, private religious college. But the New Hampshire list does contain earmarks that raise questions about when and whether public money should be given to private institutions.

New Hampshire's earmark haul includes $400,000 awarded to Franklin Pierce University in Rindge to help create a four-year nursing program, and $300,000 given to New England College in Henniker for a solar hot water and geothermal heating system. Both schools are private, non- or not-for-profit institutions that charge students approximately $35,000 per year in tuition, fees and room and board.

If earmarks are going to be given to private institutions, the public benefit of what amounts to a gift from taxpayers should be clear and significant. The earmark for Franklin Pierce, requested by Sen. Judd Gregg and then-Sen. John Sununu, passes that test. The one for New England College, requested by Rep. Paul Hodes, does not.

The severe nursing shortage of years past has largely been alleviated. Just 5 percent of the nursing jobs at New Hampshire hospitals are currently vacant, according to Gregg's office. But, as with coming shortages in primary-care physicians and dentists, the retirement of baby boomers stands to alter that picture drastically. By 2020, unless nothing is done, the nation will face a shortage of 1 million nurses, and New Hampshire is projected to have less than three-quarters of the nurses it will need to care for the population.

The public benefit of educating more nurses in New Hampshire, where many are likely to stay and work, is clear. And since the school will offers nursing classes at satellite campuses in Concord and Portsmouth, graduates of the new program are likely to come from all over the state.

On the other end of the scale sits the earmark for New England College. Justification for spending public money on the green equivalent of a new furnace for a private college is thin indeed. There will be financial benefits for the school, and, in the greater scheme of things, the environment will benefit. In the short term, a few jobs could be created. But a private school shouldn't get taxpayer funds for so slim a public benefit, especially when public schools like the University of New Hampshire were asked to return state money to help balance the budget.

Appropriations via earmarks are available to every institution, public or private. All one has to do is ask. But before a member of Congress says yes, he or she must decide whether the earmark is defensible. In the case of New England College, it isn't.




Today's editioral about earmarks simplifies what is wrong with Washington. I guess the Monitor will be the judge and jury when it comes to earmarks. Outrage at the bridge to nowhere (Republican) but not a hint of concern to realigning a driveway for a private school due the democrat support.
I now understand, if it is a earmark for a democrat it is automaticly good but for a republican bad.
When inflation hits 18 to 20% in a few years I can't wait to see who the monitor blames because we all "know" that it will not be Obama's fault!
It is that simple.
Also... it is not Congress' job to do these things but Congressmen don't mind... it is NOT their money.

The problem with, "Some earmarks more justifiable than others"