Earmarks are making a comeback. Actually, they never went away. Earmarks are known under several names. Some people call them “pork barrel spending.” Others call them “pet projects,” but mostly these days they are known as earmarks. Whatever you call them, they are spending designations which are inserted into an appropriations bill, by an individual Congressperson or Senator. The earmark requires the agency receiving the appropriation to spend a set amount of money on a given project designated by the legislator that placed the earmark. The earmark itself is not examined by a congressional committee and adding it to the bill is not specifically voted upon by the legislature. So when the appropriations bill is passed, the earmark becomes law and the designated amount of tax-payer funds is dispersed according to instructions outlined in the earmark.
The argument for earmarks is that legislators know their district or state better than some bureaucrat in Washington and therefore should be the one who directs how government money is spent in that state or district. And to be fair, some earmarks are for worthwhile and necessary projects. Earmarks might include road projects, water or sewer projects, community development grants, military base improvement, and grants to hospitals, universities, and non-profit organizations. However, the practice of earmarking is ripe for misuse and is more often abused than used propitiously. Earmarks often designate tax breaks aimed at a specific company or research grants for a specific employer. Of course, a quid pro quo is against the law, but the company or employer often rewards the legislator with campaign donations or occasionally outright bribes, as in the case of former representative Randy “Duke” Cunningham, a Republican from California, now in jail.
Republicans were in control of the congress from 1992 to 2006. During those 12 years, the number of earmarks swelled from 546 projects worth $3.1 billion in 1991 to almost 14,000 projects worth $27 billion in 2005, according to Citizens Against Government Waste in Washington. In the 2006 mid-term elections, Americans put Democrats in charge of Congress, at least in part, because Democrats promised to get earmark spending under control. They kept their promise, but only for a short while. In 2007 earmark spending when down to about 13 billion, a significant drop.
Now, Democrats seem to have forgotten their promise to limit and make more transparent the use of earmarks. In this year’s budget, the use of earmarks seems to be on the rise again. We don’t know exactly how much, because the budget is not finalized yet. Nevertheless, there is every indication that the use of earmarks will rise from last year. One piece of evidence to support this assertion is the House Defense Authorization Bill. Earmarks in that bill alone soared from $7.7 billion last year to almost $10 billion this year, an increase of about 30 percent.
The practice of earmarks, I believe, is slowly but surely eroding our democracy. Earmarks have become most practical way for politicians to reward wealthy donors in their districts. Legislators need money to get elected and re-elected. Powerful and wealthy citizens in their districts provide that cash. Earmarks are their reward.
So my question is, do you really want to get rid of earmarks? This is a democracy and we, the voters could do so if we really wanted to do it. However, I believe we may never get rid of earmarks, because citizens do not seem to want the practice to end. We will angrily criticize a senator or representative for taking earmarks, while voting to reelect legislators from our own district when they use earmarks to bring in helpful projects. If we want the practice of earmarks to end, we voters must say firmly to our congressperson and senators “No earmarks!” And then we must reinforce that command with our votes.
PS: This will be my last post for about a week. I’m on my way to Arizona to see the Grandkids and take them to the Grand Canyon. I’ll try not to fall in!
