Earmarks -- What's All the Fuss About!

Earlier this week, the US Senate passed the administration's spending budget bill for the next year, the Omnibus spending bill in congressional jargon, but more often referred to as the "ominous" spending bill by many observers. Why that less than flattering label? Because despite the Obama campaign promises to ban all earmarks and the general condemnation of them heard universally during the last years of the Bush administration, this bill contained close to eight thousand earmarks... yes, that's right, eight thousand earmarks!

Earmarks are those terrible little pet projects that Congressmen and Senators add on to major legislation to "take care of the people back home" by getting money authorized for local projects that have a hopeful additional benefit of creating jobs and increasing prosperity back home where the voters live who determine the political future of those politicians who insert the earmarks. Earmarks started out as a little here and a little there, and then exploded during the Bush administration when Republicans, strong proponents of fiscal responsibility and strong attackers of "out of control" government spending, saw the light or the votes and set aside their principals for bridges back home. In some cases, so many earmarks were added to bills that they needed an additional funding authorization to fund the earmarks beyond the funding contemplated in the original spending bill itself.

But for the first time, earmarks attained national status as a presidential campaign issue when candidate Barack Obama made them front and center in his broad theme and mission to "change the way business is conducted in Washington" by promising to go "line by line" and eliminate them if he were elected president. And what's happened since the election, we now have the new administration's first budget spending legislation with no less than eight thousand of these earmarks.

Ironically, the budget spending bill is really the first genuine example of true bipartisanship in Washington promised by the new administration as Republicans are responsible for almost forty percent (40%) of all the earmarks in this bill, while the Democrats had to settle for sponsoring sixty percent (60%) of these personal pet spending projects, proving that indeed the two parties can indeed work together for the common good - or for someone's good.

Have earmarks been consistently condemned by leaders of both parties, including their presidential candidates? Yes! Have earmarks raised the ire of the media and become almost a breaking story of scandal when reported on? Absolutely! And has attacking earmarks become a sure way to win applause or approval by candidates seeking office and citizens' groups needing to build a base of support? You bet! And did President Obama renege on his promise to ban all earmarks and go line by line to eliminate them? Yes he did! So what!

What's all the fuss about? There's a reason why earmarks are a constant repeating issue in campaigns and political debates, and it's the same reason why they still keep showing up in legislation. Because people want them!

But it's a matter of interpretation. People want them if the project being funded is in their home town, but they oppose them if the project is clear across the other end of the country.

Recently, Wolf Blitzer on CNN highlighted a $900,000 earmark in Las Vegas for an environmental project that has the blessing of Senator Harry Reid of Nevada. Blitzer also highlighted a $900,000 earmark in Myrtle Beach, SC for a new convention center that's on the "must do" list of Senator Lindsey Graham of that state. And on the March 8th Sunday Meet The Press edition, New York's Senator Charles Schumer espoused the virtue of a two million dollar earmark to fund mortgage fraud investigations in Brooklyn, saying that he "could never have gotten the money now when it's really needed if he didn't do it as an earmark." And Lindsey Graham defended the Myrtle Beach convention center by saying "we're building an airport there and trying to make Myrtle Beach a thriving international city." And Harry Reid in Nevada has become so powerful and confident that he doesn't even bother to defend his earmarks anymore - he just puts them in.

So here's where we are. People really don't want earmarks, but they do want that project in Las Vegas, because that's not an earmark, that's something we need. And they do want the convention center in Myrtle Beach, because that's not an earmark, that's something we need.

And they want the mortgage investigation money in Brooklyn, because clearly that's not an earmark, it's something we need. But we don't need all those projects out on the coast etc, because those are just earmarks - but our project right here in our town improves the community, creates jobs, and makes America a greater country, even if it is a "bridge to nowhere." And that's how it works - and don't think for one minute that every politician in America, including President Obama, doesn't understand that.

Because the people really do want them, the politicians want them, and as President Obama is learning quickly, if the politicians want them, then in order for you to get their votes on stimulus packages, health care reform, education reform, and energy independence, you have to compromise and give them some of the things they want.

Mortgage fraud investigations are not crucial to people in Wyoming, who want to use their stimulus money for property tax cuts. So to them, Chuck Schumer's Brooklyn project is an earmark. And Lindsey Graham's convention center is not crucial to Chuck Schumer or to New Yorkers - where they already have a convention center so large that when you stay in a hotel in New York, they add a surcharge to your hotel bill to help pay for it - even if you don't know where the center is, let alone actually attending an event there.

And a project to help the environment in Las Vegas is not crucial to anyone who lives outside of Nevada, and is even less crucial if you're visiting and losing your shirt at the tables at Caesar's.

If the project helps me, then it's a crucial component to ensuring the future of my community. If the project helps you, then it's an earmark. And we don't need any more of those, so I'm against them. And I expect my elected officials to rail against them, as long as those same officials keep getting funding for the crucial projects we need right here in our town. And that's how it works. It will not change, and it raises questions for later discussions about whether if in fact things were not going to really change in Washington, was Barack Obama the best prepared candidate to deal and operate in an environment of "politics as usual" and disingenuous political maneuvering... just a thought for future reflection.

But our new president is one of the smartest we've ever had, and he learns quickly. So he will abandon previous campaign promises just as soon as he determines that only the old way will really work in Washington in order to get things done. Question to be asked is whether the American people will abandon him if he winds up having to abandon so many of his core campaign themes and missions.

Only time will tell. But one thing is certain. Earmarks will not be abandoned, as they are wanted, needed, and counted on. They are as American as apple pie, which turns out now may be bad for you!

Carl Jeffers is a Los Angeles-and Seattle based columnist, TV political analyst, radio talk show host and commentator, and a national lecturer.

Comments

[army193]

If the President doesn't like what is sent to him he can veto...Thi­s line item is BS...The congress can override the President that's the way the systems work use it. The Federal Government isn't a State, the states only answer to a few million the United State Government is representing 300 million.

[JimR]

You know what's BS? Powerful, entrenched Congressmen holding needed bills hostage until funding for their own pet projects is included in it. That's BS. And that is not what the Founding Fathers intended.

[research]

At least now we have the transparency to know Who added What earmarks. Thank Obama and the Democrats for that. Now public pressure can work to reign in the abuses.

Earmarks are 1-2% of the budget. Earmarks are the grease the makes congress work. I my personal budget is within 2% of ideal, I'm thrilled.

This is standard Conservative Distraction.

Focus on the minutia to stall and derail the process.

Obstruct and sabotage is all the GOP have left.

Add to that the calls for violence and I think it's time to label the GOP a terrorist organization.

[barabajagl]

I also meant to say, earmarks should be kept completely separate from the omnibus or other major legislation. You could categorize things like infrastructure, environment, and so on into single bills containing nothing but earmarks. Then the sponsors would have to debate their pet pork on C-SPAN, in front of the American public. As it stands, pork is tucked away in major spending bills, in the hope that they'll slip by. It's a relatively minor flaw in our appropriations system, but one that should be cured.

[barabajagl]

A Presidential line item veto would take care of most of the problem. Silly, wasteful things like the Mendel Rivers office building in DC would be struck down. Anything really good for infrastructure, the economy, the environment, and so on would be kept. And if you think partisanship would color Presidential line items decisions, remember that the EPA was created under Nixon. No President is going to do something that makes him look like a knucklehead--unless his name is dubya, that is.

[LeftRight]

Problem is that the Line Item Veto was given to Bill Clinton by the Republican Congress, and then the SCOTUS determined that it was Unconstitutional, violating the separation of powers clause.

[barabajagl]

Yup. A darned shame. It seems ridiculous that line item veto would require a constitutional amendment--but in the current economy and political climate, we might be able to get one through the Congress.

[lauram]

Here's an easy way to remember it: is it helping you? it's pork; is it helping me? it's bringing home the bacon.

[sloppyJoe]

I live in Iowa where pigs out number humans by a good 5 to 1. Fox news has our earmark of studying pig odor as one of their big examples of a bad earmark. Dear Lord, we need that money. You can't ride your bike in the country without gagging. People's rural property values are plummeting if they are within smelling distance of a pig farm. The money also goes to figuring out how to get rid of all the pig poop without it ending up in our water systems, which will eventually end up in any state south of Iowa's water systems. This earmark will help a lot of people.

[bannorhill]

Why should Florida taxpayers pay for an Iowa problem? If it was such a BIG problem then the Iowa state Senate should pay for it!

No wonder 42% of Federal spending is waste.

[dsws]

It's a problem in lots of states. The pigs are raised for a nationwide market. If one state tried to regulate it in a way that cost the feedlots even a tenth as much as the value of cutting the pollution, the feedlots would just relocate to other states. So it has to be federal.

[maddie0001]

Why should Pennsylvania taxpayers pay to repair hurricane damage in Florida? Why should Minnesota taxpayers pay to maintain the Golden Gate Bridge? Why should Montana taxpayers pay to clean up the World Trade Center?

[texastrixie]

CORRECTION ON COMMENT 2

Meant that FEWER stupid allocations will be made if the public can see them and give input (vote) on what is the best use of the money.

[texastrixie]

COMMENT PART 2

By having a stated amount go to each Congressional District you won't have Republicans spending all the money when they are in power, or Democrats doing the same when they are in power

By having a stated amount of pork in each district, this can be regulated by the Congress itself and the President. If they allocate more for these projects than the President thinks is appropriate, he can then veto the bill. But by having a number, he can also tell the Congress ahead of time, $$$$$ is too much. I will only sign a spending bill with 2% or $$$ in it.

Little stupid expenditures will be made if the Congress has to post all possible pork sausages on the website for a minimum of 6 weeks before the vote. If the funding for the swamp land that is breeding bird sized mosquitos is up against a statute of the District's youngest world war I enlistee, those people being eaten by mosquitos will sound off loud and clear.

By establishing a fiscal limit, and giving each district the same amount, we will not have to listen to endless talk about the program. Everybody gets a slice of the pie, and they are all equal in size.

This would give Congress some reward for having to constantly campaign plus try to get something useful done (besides pork).

[texastrixie]

Okay, since the public secretly wants these, lets make them transparent and equal.
1) Only Congress gets CDSF - Congressional District Specific Funding - because they have to be elected every 2 yrs and its an expected part of their job to bring home pork
2) Since Congressional districts are supposedly based on population, they are supposed to be equal. Therefore, each district should get the same STATED amount of "pork"
3) CDSF is alloted for every 2 year term. You can spend it all the first year, ban together with your geographical Congressional neighbor to build something more expensive than your allottment, and if you oust someone and the CDSF hasn't been spent, you can change the allocation (You're the one voting on it - you get to decide where it goes!)
4) All proposed projects must be put up on your Congressional website and you must get input from your constiuents before you greenlight anything
5) You must get competitive bids, which won't be hard since every little company in your district will see the proposed project, what work is entailed, and how much the proposed receipient is getting paid.
Finally, Senators don't get any earmarks. They are supposed to work not only for their state, but on behalf of the whole country. Congressmen are the daddy figures - giving in to pleading and whining; Senators are the mother figures - making sure we do our homework.

[LeftRight]

I like the way you think! That sounds like a GREAT plan!! The only thing that I would change would be the mommy and daddy figures, because my mom was the one that you could plead with, and my dad was the rulemaker!

[bannorhill]

LeftRight.­...finally something we agree on. It is a good idea. If only we could get it to pass AND limit it to NO more than 0.1% of GDP.

[dsws]

If we want to keep the pressure on to limit earmarks (which, once again, Obama did not say he would ban completely, which the Constitution doesn't give him the power to do anyway), we need to call our own representatives and say we don't want pork for our own districts -- and we need to back it up with campaign contributions to any representative that supports significant appropriations reform.

[JimR]

I am not naive enough to think any president could ban all earmarks. But if we could rein them in, and introduce a little more accountability and responsibility into the process, well... that's a start.

[davidly]

Spot on, you're right. Apple pie is bad for you. Worse is pork pie, but it is sooo delicious. The DoD's contractors know how to spread the manufacture of WoMD around so that it is a liability for enough members to oppose these projects. Just like everything else in politics, a simple ban just ain't gonna do it. That would make about as much sense as outlawing representatives of the people, or making pie illegal. We need a whole change of priorities, indeed a paradigm shift. Despite the hint of the president's call on all of US to lead the way in this regard, not many seem to have a clue what change really means.

[Blufftonian]

Earmarks are the currency of corrupt politicians.

[Blufftonian]

Earmarks are the currency of corrupt politicians. That is why the fuss.

[DKLabRat]

What irks me is the way that politicians and media pundits irresponsibly pick out certain earmarks and use them as though they're wasteful and irrelevant. Like the money earmarked for honey bee research. This is not folly. The mysterious decline in honey bee is a serious situation that we need to get to the bottom of. Those idiots will be smirking on the other side of their faces in the future if we don't investigate and honey bees become extinct. The effect on the planet's plant life would be devastating.