The Latest Attempt To Kill Earmarks
April 22nd, 2009 by 
Kevin
Earmarks get criticized every session, always by conservatives (but not necessary Republicans) but also by liberals when they don’t control Congress. Some conservatives/libertarians oddly enough have defended the practice. Rationale being it’s money that was going to be spend anyway, so may as well let legislators decide on what projects it will be spent rather than bureaucrats. There is some truth to that but it’s a little shortsighted.
First of all, if these projects being earmarked were really so worthy, they should be able to stand on their own merit. If they can’t stand on their own merit how does that make them any better than a bureaucrat flipping a coin? But more importantly earmarks are the coin by which corruption is paid.
For any given company, it’s more than worth it to cough up a couple million to their favorite politicians if that politician then sends a billion dollars in federal money their way. Thus begins the cycle of corruption and you get politicians like Jack Murtha and Ted Stevens and countless other blowhards that use our federal tax dollars to get others to feather their nests.
Which is focus behind the latest effort to kill earmarks.
Two reform-minded Democrats will introduce a bill Wednesday to address the growing controversy around the corruptive influence of earmarks and campaign donations from the companies that receive them.
Reps. Paul Hodes (D-N.H.) and Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), who are in their second terms, are co-sponsoring a measure that would prevent lawmakers from taking campaign contributions from entities for which they have requested earmarks, as well as the entities lobbyists and employees.
It’s a start and I support it to be sure, but I have no illusions about the cleverness of our Congress Critters. More than likely it’ll simply sweep the problem under the rug as it ands an extra layer of deception to the whole process. Now instead of contributions directly to the person giving them an earmark. Politicians could easily arrange to “swap” earmarks. You put forth my earmark and I’ll put forth yours. Wink Wink Nudge Nudge.
I appreciate the effort guys, especially coming as it does from Democrats in outright opposition to Nancy Pelosi’s desire to maintain the Culture of Coruption over which she presides. But it’s gonna take more. Let’s call this Step 1.
Email This Post
| 
Print This Post
Posted in Political Mumbojumbo | 
5 Comments »
April 23rd, 2009 at 7:31 am
I see more than a bit of corruption here. To ban contributions (look at how well McCain-Feingold has worked) from companies that have received earmark money is backwards. The real corruption occurs in taking the money BEFORE the earmark is made.
The real problem is that it ISN’T “money that would be spent anyway.” Just because Congressman Oldfogey gets to the trough first, doesn’t mean Congressman Newkid doesn’t still need some bacon of his own to bring home, or that Newkid’s project doesn’t have more merit and gets funded anyway, or next year. Even worse, since when is it the job of the federal government to fund a bus station for Lakeville, Minnesota? Seems to me that the folks in Lakeville who don’t like waiting for the bus in 40-mph wind-driven sleet might want to pony up for their own?
April 23rd, 2009 at 8:01 am
Well it IS money that would be spent anyway. All an earmark is really is the legislature saying “Heh Agency X, we’re giving you a budget of A dollars. HOWEVER, of that B dollars, you must use C dollars of it for project D”.
So it was already going to be spent by the agency, the legislators are just directing them where.
Although your point about a bus station in Lakeville is well taken.
April 23rd, 2009 at 10:56 am
I think the “spent anyway” argument can be argued either way. I am of the opinion that, first of all, the money probably shouldn’t be spent at all, like in Lakeville. But I also happen to believe that Agency X wouldn’t be getting A dollars unless somebody had already figured out how much of it was to be carved out for bacon.
True earmark reform has to start with eliminating the process of “airdropping” them into the budget, with no review and no vote. It then has to progress to the notion that NOBODY gets to put a special designation into the budget– basically insuring that every dollar spent must be by a competitive bid, and on projects that compete on merit. Finally, we have to come to the point that the federal government ceases funding of local projects altogether, respecting the 10th amendment and bringing the responsibility for taxing and spending back down to local governments where it belongs. Look how much chin music is expended justifying LRT because we can “get federal money for it.” Where do people think “federal money” comes FROM?
April 23rd, 2009 at 11:02 am
Well in theory I agree with your approach but there is a bit of a caveat that must be respected. Constitutionally Congress has the “power of the purse”, so to speak. So any restriction upon their ability to set budgets and restricting their ability to fund programs is likely to come afoul of constitutional questions.
April 23rd, 2009 at 11:41 am
You are correct in the general sense. A closer examination, however, would find, IMHO, that they are already so far “afoul” and afield from their Constitutional authority that most of these earmarks, and quite possibly the process itself, would not pass Constitutional muster. Now getting someone to succeed at trial, with a bunch of liberal judges, is another matter. So yes, my approach is probably “in theory.”
I keep hoping some brave group will sue to force retraction of the bailout.