Most of the “good guvmint” resolutions floating over Capitol Hill about killing earmarks are spurious – a distraction. It’s like a coach blaming a poor game on the hot dogs sold at the ball park. Those politicians who make so much of how they will fix Washington by eliminating earmarks are, more often than not, blowing smoke to hide real budget problems.
Earmarks are typically less than one half of 1 percent of the budget that Congress passes, so to hang the blame of the national debt on them is nonsense. Better to examine monies spent on military – military hardware alone is about 30 percent of the budget. The U.S. spends about $80 billion for weapons research – against $4 billion for energy research. Contrast earmark dollars with agricultural subsidies. Compare $4 billion dollars for earmarks against $80 billion for ethanol. Think of the coming fiscal train wreck Medicare that represents hundreds of billions.
However, even if surreptitiously slipped into a bill during its long voyage through Congress, individual specific proposals (earmarks) are not all bad. A comparison of recent earmark history is revealing.
A new Congress, full of good resolution, abandoned earmarks for fiscal year 2007, but one year later, when the media turned its attention elsewhere, quietly resumed them. A comparison of those two years sheds some light:
A program of federal grants for local bus transportation designed to provide help for as many towns and cities as possible was managed by the Department of Transportation in ’07 without congressional input. To distribute the grants, transportation bureaucrats required complicated proposals from local governments – documents complete with the bells and whistles with which bureaucrats decorate paperwork. Many towns and cities didn’t know how to develop these difficult proposals and failed to get requests done properly or on time.
Consequently, in ’07, only six proposals in five states were approved.
Then, in 2008, when congressional earmarks were resumed, 3l3 grants were given to 43 states.
Consider another program: C.O.P.S. was originally established to fight crime. In 2007, only 37 grants to 26 communities were given (and, by the way, none of the 10 most dangerous cities in crime statistics were included). In ’08, when Congress resumed earmarks, 560 grants were given in 42 states.
It is true that many in Congress insert into major bills local projects that may not pass the straight-face test. Although the current hoorah about eliminating earmarks is largely bullpoop, it is certainly possible that earmarks can be abused, and congressional scoundrels of both parties can be identified. To name just a couple: Republican Stevens of Alaska of $600 million dollar “bridge to nowhere” fame and Democrat Murtha of Pennsylvania, who tarnished his otherwise notable escutcheon with a flood of earmarks lasting decades. Nevertheless, there is a silver lining in the cloud of earmarks. They ain’t all bad.
Congress was given the power of the purse and using this power can be one of its most productive and responsible functions. The administration operates the machinery of a huge and diverse country – a machinery frequently ponderous and out of local touch. Earmarks can deliver an escape from such bureaucratic sludge by providing a method through which local needs can be met quickly and efficiently. Who knows local needs any better than a congressperson – who can see a problem and address it more quickly?
Earmarks have been made to smell bad – and many were. But a straightforward rule can go a long way toward making them fragrant. 1. Publish individual earmark requests, including cost, justification and name of sponsor in advance. 2. Require individual earmarks to have a full committee vote.
It’s that easy. And we won’t have to listen to the rants of those airbags who seize on this non-problem to get their face on TV.
Devil’s Dictionary ?Quote of the Week
Ethical: In the world of commerce and law, a term that can be replaced with “detectable.”
Rodney Quinn, a former Maine secretary of state, lives in Gorham. He can be reached at rquinn@maine.rr.com.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
