What’s wrong with earmarks?
OK, so the legislative practice of funding pet projects is named for a farming method for branding pigs. And pigs remind us of pork, and we all know that political pork is a bad thing.
Or do we? The question is timely, since President Bush condemned earmarks and “pork-barrel” spending in his recent State of the Union address. Bush says he’ll veto any appropriation bill that doesn’t cut by half the number of earmarks Congress sought last time around.
What’s more, Sen. John McCain, the GOP’s presidential candidate, vows to make earmark abuse an issue in his campaign against the Democratic nominee, whoever he or she may be.
It’s a good issue for Republicans. Especially now that Democrats control Congress, and so many pundits buy the idea that earmarks, if not illegal, are a political vice.
But there is a case to be made for earmarks. What’s so wrong with allowing elected members of Congress — or the president himself, through his executive departments — to insert special requests into a budget for particular projects?
Earmarks, in one form or another, have been around as long as the republic. It’s one reason why so many military bases are located in places like Georgia and South Carolina, where congressmen tend to get re-elected for life. Seniority on committees lets them all but specify where the military will be housed and home-ported.
The ability to bring home the bacon is the oil (not to say “grease”) that slides together the disparate coalitions needed to pass legislation. Former Rep. William Lipinski, a past master of earmarks, once parlayed his support of President Ronald Reagan’s anti-communist crusade in Nicaragua for federal funds to build the CTA’s Orange Line to Midway Airport. It may not be pretty, but it’s how stuff gets done.
But at what cost, you ask? Actually, not that much. Sure, watchdog groups like to point out that the federal budget contains “thousands” of earmarks costing “billions” of dollars. They also point to genuine abuses such as Alaska’s proposed “bridge to nowhere.” What they don’t say is that earmarks amount to less than 2 percent of federal spending. Or that the average cost of earmarked projects has been declining as congressmen use them for smaller projects, such as the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum in Springfield. (Or did you think the Department of the Interior, not our Rep. Ray LaHood, pushed to get that one built?)
The total number of earmarks also has been falling — only 2,658 projects last year compared with 9,963 the year before — mainly because the new Democratic majority, with some GOP support, reacted to the anti-pork headlines by slapping a partial moratorium on their use. They also insisted that sponsors of earmarks be clearly identified, as must all who stand to benefit from a project. The idea is to clean up abuses such as those by convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff and former Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham.
So it’s a bit strange that Bush, whose tax cuts and ill-advised military forays have helped push the budget to record deficits, would suddenly, as the lamest of lame ducks, declare war on congressional earmarks.
Some Democrats suggest Bush is trying to divert attention from more serious problems, such as Iraq or lax oversight of the mortgage lending business. Perhaps, but the White House has also been pretty generous with its own earmarks. How about $24 million for the Laura Bush 21st Century Librarian Program? It was one of 580 administration drop-ins, worth $15.6 billion, in last year’s appropriation for military construction and veterans affairs.
But this leads to another defense of earmarks: Most are for worthwhile stuff. Laura Bush’s program aims to help “recruit and educate the next generation of librarians.” Nothing wrong with that.
Nor was there anything wrong with McCain’s past efforts to win federal support for the University of Arizona, for the Arizona Scenic National Trail or for Luke Air Force Base west of Phoenix. Besides, if it weren’t for federal water projects there’d be no Arizona … or at least no 6 million people living in the Sonoran Desert from Phoenix to Tucson.
No, what’s needed isn’t a ban on earmarks but a more sensible way to evaluate and prioritize projects.
Stephen Schlickman, executive director of our Regional Transportation Authority, recommends a vetting system like the Federal Transit Administration’s New Start program. Local agencies like Metra and CTA make their best case for a new rail line or station. Federal technicians evaluate and grade the applications. Congress appropriates accordingly.
But face it, reformers: It doesn’t hurt to have a Bill Lipinski or a Ray LaHood (R-Ill.) on your side. Nor should it.
———-
John McCarron writes, consults and teaches on urban affairs.
