RSS Feed Menu
Mitch McConnell has finally come around to endorsing a moratorium on earmarks. It’s about time, although it’s not enough. However, while the ban won’t result in big budget savings, it will alter how deals are made in Washington and could stop Congress from interfering with planning at the state and local levels.
First, even a total end to all earmarks won’t do anything to help trim the budget. Earmarks comprise less than one percent of federal spending and much of the money that gets earmarked (even the famous “Bridge to Nowhere”) is money that’s allocated and spent anyway. Simply eliminating earmarks per se will probably cut less only $1-$2 billion from the budget. All earmarks put together aren’t more than $20 billion and a fair number of those are in defense, veterans and other programs Republicans are loathe to shrink overall.
Second, the practice still may help shrink and improve government more than the piddling sums involved indicate at first blush. Quite simply, earmarks are the “currency of big government.” Congressional leaders and appropriators intent on getting funding for pet projects often hand out earmarks in order to secure votes for controversial bills. Without this bargaining chip, it will be harder (but far from impossible) to buy off members in return for votes.
Finally, for residents of well-governed states, the most visible and obvious consequence of the end of earmarks will be better roads. This is hardly obvious but it is likely to happen: A huge percentage of earmarks involve highways funds which the federal government distributes based on arcane but essentially fair formulas. Budget rules don’t let states get any more than the formulas indicate but members earmark away nonetheless because they like taking credit for new bridges and highways. In most states, this tends to do harm because it lets members of Congress muck with transportation priorities and upkeep plans decided upon by professional state level transportation planners and local communities. Roads to nowhere get built while much-used interstates get neglected.
For people who live in Utah, Florida, Virginia, Texas, and a host of other reasonably well-run states the state transportation planners and local elected officials almost certainly have a better idea of what’s needed than members of Congress do. Without earmarks, they’ll have more freedom to build the roads people actually need.
Eli:
“For people who live in Utah, Florida, Virginia, Texas, and a host of other reasonably well-run states”
Any blue states you think are ‘reasonably well-run states’?
Any blue states you think are ‘reasonably well-run states’?
LOL .
I was just thinking “finally, a conservative paying tribute to the wisdom of letting professional trained faceless unelected bureaucrats decide how government money will most efficiently be spent!”
Eli Lehrer
“Mitch McConnell has finally come around to endorsing a moratorium on earmarks. It’s about time, although it’s not enough.”
Do you mean “the moratorium on earmarks” was overdue? Or do you mean “a moratorium on earmarks” is a suspension of earmarks for a limited period of time and that limited period is not long enough?
This moratorium on earmarks to impress the American voter is like the husband who gos to Alcoholics Anonymous for a couple of weeks to fool his wife into thinking he stopped drinking.
Balconesfault:
Eli just pitched a hanging curve ball. I had to hit it.
rabiner — you may wish to google “texas budget deficit.” will you be surprised to learn that it rivals california’s on a per capita basis? let’s get the facts right.
Florida does not belong on any list of “well-run” states. I lived there for five years, and it’s a mess. And note that it has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country.
I have not looked at earmarks closely but my gut says this is a waste of time. Earmarks help individual states which goes to building infrastructure or some type of public benefit while creating jobs. This money comes from outside what a state budget would or could allow.
If earmarks are cash payments to individuals or corporations and the money is not distributed then that would be an issue. But I think for the most part the money goes to the public good.
That to me is not a problem worth fixing.
Did not the Great & Wise Nancy promise to end “earmarks” when she took control of the House in 07. I’m sure all the Libs here were nodding like a doggy in the window on that. Now when it looks like it may actually happen because of Republicans we have the usual snide remarks from the Looney Left section.
Already the Libs looks troubled over 2012.
Did not the Great & Wise Nancy promise to end “earmarks” when she took control of the House in 07.
Nope.
Pelosi simply pledged to identify who sponsored earmarks.
In fact, at the time, Pelosi said some earmarks are very worthy.
See what happens when you get all you news from Fox?
They lie.
It seems that the Republicans have some other scheme that will give them the upper hand over the Democrats.
Actually Balcon the process to identify the sponsor of an earmark was in place before the 2006 election. This process was voted against by the majority of Dems in the House, Nancy included, but the Reps had the majority and it passed anyway.
You are correct though Nancy only promised to have the most ethical Congress ever and it should come of no surprise that earmark reform played no part in this promise.
Now however the TeaPartiers have provided actual reform. You can thank them during your next posting.
sdspringy:
Identifing the sponsor of the earmarks was an accomplishment that the Republicans can point to? Then pleas explain why over half of the earmarks within the Department of Defense Appropriations Act have “anaonymous” attached to them. That’s a whole lotta pork, going to a whole lotta red states, too, that nobody is held accountable for.
I find the whole idea that Democrats and their blue states are the source of all earmark evil. It is true-with Senator Byrd gone, West Virginia risks sliding into a backwater of nothingness without his pork.
But golly, in 2009 and 2010, Thad Cochran (R-Miss) gave him a run for his money. Speaking of backwaters of nothingness…I will be very interested to see Haley Barbour pound his chest as a “successful” governor without the ten, twenty, thirty (and more) billion is projects his US Senator secures for him to prop up his state.
Larry:
“rabiner — you may wish to google “texas budget deficit.” will you be surprised to learn that it rivals california’s on a per capita basis? let’s get the facts right.”
I was being sarcastic and I know about Texas’ budget deficit. The author mentioned how those states were ‘well run’, I just had to comment about it as funny.
http://www.limitedgovernment.org/publications/pubs/briefs/pdfs/brf14-8.pdf
The House of Representatives acted first, passing earmark reform as part of Speaker Pelosi’s (D-CA) 100 Hour agenda. Despite attempts by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and others to water down the House reforms, Senators Coburn and Jim DeMint (R-SC) helped push through a final bill that was more stringent than the House bill. The main reform contained in both bills would require earmark requests to be posted on the Internet at least 48 hours before a vote on the bill. Among other information, the name of the Member of Congress making the earmark request would be disclosed, something that was not always known in the past.
So it seems that the “Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007”, pushed through the House by Pelosi and through Senate by Coburn and DeMint, in fact did create new earmark disclosure requirements. What I can’t find is any record of Bush actually signing the bill.
Does anyone know why?
Pardon my cynicism, but aren’t earmarks simply defined as a civic project that’s in someone else’s district?
A few years ago, I read an article on earmarks and why they harm planning.
Departments such as transportation for example develop a list of projects to accomplish. The list is prioritized depending upon need and importance. Given the amount of money allotted, the projects on the list are funded until the money runs out and those projects are stricken from the list.
When earmarks are inserted in the funding mechanism, departments are shorted the funds to finance the priorities on their list because the earmarked funds are taken off the top, leaving less money to fund the needed projects. So, one or more needed and important projects are not funded because funds are diverted to fund the project of particular legislator which may or may not be as important or as needed.
However, an earmarking problem still remains: legislators are till free to write letters to various departments “requesting” that certain projects in their states or districts be given priority over those already on the list. This circumstance has already occurred with the Stimulus funds…and it is not likely to end just because earmarks are banned.
So, how do you deal with that workaround?
“What I can’t find is any record of Bush actually signing the bill.
Does anyone know why?”
I assume that is a facetious comment, but for those who actually don’t know, I’ll bite: Bush made a habit of never vetoing anything (remember “signing statements”?), letting a lot of legislation die on his desk in the process.
@sdspringy:
“Now however the TeaPartiers have provided actual reform. You can thank them during your next posting.”
Actual reform, eh? So far, All I’ve heard is talk . . . and some of the loudest “TeaPartiers” are already starting to walk back from it:
Michelle Bachman protecting Earmarks for her district:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/anti-earmark-bachmann-open-to-earmark-redefinition-for-her-district.php?ref=fpb
And, while not relating to earmarks but certainly in the same “talk is cheap” vein . . .
Andrew Harris campaigns against socialist Obamacare, then bitches his government healthcare wont kick in for a whole month:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/freshman-goper-hey-wheres-my-health-care.php
Before you (or anybody) can talk about reforming “earmarks”, we have to settle on a deifintion for what that word means. If I vote against earmarks, then just call personal spending items for my district “lettermarks” or some other term, I haven’t actually changed anything. Moreover, if I did that, it would be a deliberate attempt to LIE to you, the American voter. Hardly the stuff of integrity and common sense . . . . but certainly the stuff of greedy, lying politicans.
Yes sir, those TeaPartiers sure are going to change things!