Why Earmarks Matter

Last week, Politico reported that John McCain has not given up the ship.  His efforts to remake the GOP in his own moderate image continue.

Conservatives were quick to scoff.  Even conceding that the GOP faces a demographic challenge with the number of college graduates growing and the political power of white males receding, and even assuming that the loudest members of the conservative movement repel rather than attract purple America’s white collar professionals, McCain’s career hardly demonstrates the likelihood of moderation triumphant.  Quite simply, there is little evidence that his own deviations from conservative orthodoxy have ever moved the dial in the GOP’s favor.  Immigration reform enraged red and blue America alike.  The Gang of 14, which undercut Republican efforts to bring some sanity to the judicial nomination process, was an unforced error with the Republican base.  His quest for campaign finance reform barely registered, even with independent voters.

Add to these failures of inspiration the crushing rejection of McCain the moderate Republican in 2008, and the political collapse of a Bush administration that out-mavericked the Maverick on issues from Medicare Part D to No Child Left Behind, and it does not seem that McCain’s efforts at party redefinition provide examples to emulate.

Occasionally, however, in John McCain’s ongoing assault on wasteful government spending, one does catch a glimpse of what the GOP could become, and how it might appeal to the moderate, educated, and coastal voters he so craves.

Lost in the debate over health care, McCain spoke several weeks ago in support of an amendment to the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill.  His amendment would have stripped all $1.7 billion in earmarks from this legislation, redirecting those funds toward air traffic control modernization.  This Senate floor speech highlights the opportunities for a GOP that challenges Democratic profligacy in support of narrow geographic interests.

Breaking from his campaign rhetoric, McCain’s challenge to these earmarks was not against spending as such.  Rather, he questioned the mountains of spending in this and other appropriations bills that do nothing to advance the general welfare or promote economic growth.

In an era where portable GPS devices are accessible to the vast majority of Americans in their phones and in their cars, our air traffic control system continues to rely on an outdated World War II era radar system.

We know that this is a problem.  The GAO estimates that one in every four flights is delayed.  The Joint Economic Committee found that these delays result in more than $40 billion annually in unnecessary pass-through costs for consumers.  The unmeasurable social and emotional costs of these delays are perhaps an even more significant drain on citizens.  As McCain explained, “every day Americans sit on a runway and miss meetings, children’s soccer games, family dinners and other important events due to air traffic delays that could have been avoided if our nation had a modernized air traffic control system.”

And we know what the solution is.  The FAA’s Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) would transition from our current ground-based radar system to one that uses precision satellites to allow more flights to occupy the same airspace.  According to the airlines, this switch would improve on-time performance, while tripling the capacity of the existing system.  To put it mildly, the downstream benefits to America’s economy, businesses, and families would be significant.

Yet, in a case study of administrative and legislative incompetence this transition is nowhere close to completion.  And the reason is money, or our lack of it.  In short, because of all of the nonsensical spending Congress has committed us to — whether earmarks, entitlements, or redundant authorizations — the financing for worthwhile projects such as this one, projects that our nation demands, is just not available.  The FAA estimates that it will cost up to $42 billion to implement a modern air traffic control system.  Yet, Congress only appropriated $188 million for air traffic control modernization in 2008 and $638 million in 2009.  The bill McCain targeted included $1.7 billion in earmarks, but only $358 million toward air traffic control modernization.

McCain’s argument here was not simply the latest retread of a tired case for less government spending.  By promoting a redirection, rather than just a reduction, of government spending, his campaign commitment to “Country First” might finally take on real meaning and provide his party with real direction  Contrary to a conservative movement that too often rejects government spending tout court, McCain and conservatives could stand for rifle-shot spending that promotes broad national purposes, while standing against programmatic, entitlement, and earmark spending that advances narrow parochial ones.  Doing so would not represent the ascendancy of Big Government, Compassionate, or National Greatness conservatism.  Rather, this strategy would embrace perhaps the core feature of our constitutional government.  While limited in its powers, the national government is supreme within its sphere, and among those limited powers is the promotion of interstate commerce in the service of the general welfare.  Aggressive regulatory and monetary support for an upgrade of our nation’s air traffic control system would seem to fit that bill.

Redirecting spending in this manner is not only consistent with the conservative faith in the original Constitution.  It has the added benefit of appealing to the transient citizenry of our coastal megalopolises, citizens dependent on transportation infrastructure and who see little benefit from the earmark culture and the unceasing expansion of government programs.  If McCain were to make this case, and remind conservatives that they can support a limited but strong national government, he could lead his party and provide the GOP with a service far greater than electing a few moderates in 2010.