Time to end government sponsorship of sporting events By Adam Bitely If you've watched a NASCAR race you have probably noticed the National Guard sponsoring Jeff Gordon and Dale Earnhardt Jr.'s racecars. But did you know that the National Guard has spent over $136 million sponsoring Earnhardt alone since 2008? At a time when government spending is a divisive issue in Washington D.C., two members of Congress from opposing parties have found something they can agree on—government should not sponsor sporting events. Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) and Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN) have co-sponsored an amendment that would ban the military from sponsoring sporting events. Rep. Kingston's office estimates that it would save roughly $80 million a year. The amendment offered by Kingston and McCollum is attached to the Defense Appropriations bill that is expected to be considered in the House later this week. Any member of Congress that is serious about cutting government spending should have no problem supporting this measure. Just consider the following. In 2012, the National Guard credits the NASCAR sponsorship resulting in 24,800 individuals expressing interest in joining. Of those 24,800, only 20 were qualified to join. And of those 20, no one joined. Not a single person. Just last week the Army announced that it was ending its sponsorship of NASCAR due to poor results. The advertising was not resulting in new recruits. As Rep. McCollum put it, "The Pentagon's NASCAR sponsorship program is an outrageous waste of taxpayer money and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta should terminate these sponsorship programs immediately. Spending $26 million on a NASCAR racing team – in the name of national security – for zero recruits tells me the Pentagon can painlessly absorb some serious budget cuts." Dale Earnhardt Jr. isn't happy that his racing team might be cut off from this government largesse. He suggested that Rep.'s Kingston and McCollum do more research into the matter. |