The Candy Store Congress

When Congress negotiated passage of the bailout bill earlier this month, close observers noted the addition of $150 billion in taxpayer goodies unrelated to rescuing faltering financial institutions.

Apparently legislators rightly sensed that the bill would pass the second time around and so added hundreds of pages of extra goodies. Many of these came in the form of special funding and tax break provisions for specific projects that had little or nothing to do with healing the crippled financial markets. And so there, in the rescue package we find a $49 million tax benefit for plaintiffs in the lawsuit arising from the 1989 tanker Exxon Valdez spill, a $100 million tax break to benefit automobile racetrack owners, $192 million in rebates on excise taxes for the Puerto Rican and Virgin Islands rum industry, $148 million in tax relief for U.S. wool fabric producers and a $2 million tax benefit for makers of wooden arrows for children. (Wooden arrows for children?) In the rush to salvage the collapsing economy, lawmakers had little opportunity to gauge the merit of these add-ons.

Hiding funding for pet projects in larger legislation is, of course, business as usual in Congress. But there are numerous consequences of this kind of legislating, not least of which is the perversion of the deliberative process. And, the massive give-away approach to legislating, helps spare representative's accountability for bad decisions; who, exactly, is to blame for a collection of costly tax breaks attached to a bill with sweeping support?

Earmarks are a direct outgrowth of the money chase in Congress. Lawmakers rely on wealthy interests to support their campaigns and so work to curry favor from those who will ensure a steady flow of cash enriches their campaign coffers. It is no coincidence that those who benefit from earmarks tend to support lawmakers who are in the best position, by virtue of their status or committee positions, to dole them out.

According to the Congressional Research Service, the use of earmarks increased five-fold from 1996 to 2005. But despite the constant recurrence of the subject in the presidential debates, earmarks are only one small aspect of a larger legislative failure to grapple with complex issues.

A fundamental restructuring of the political economy in Washington is needed to ensure that members of Congress act in the best interests of constituents, and not just the wealthy and well-connected interests that fund their campaigns. An obvious solution is already under consideration, and should be made a priority by the next Congress.

The Fair Elections Now Act would establish a voluntary system of comprehensive public financing for Congressional elections and would reduce the threat of special interest cash by establishing strict spending limits; plus it would encourage small donors and greatly increase the power of ordinary voters to hold Congress accountable.

The program would cost only a quarter of one percent of the President's 2008 budget proposal, under $2 billion. Compare that number to $70 to $100 billion -- the amount of taxes dodged by American corporations that use off-shore tax schemes -- and it looks like the bargain for taxpayers that it is. As the past weeks have shown, it is far too costly for Americans to maintain a political system that doesn't put voters and ordinary citizens first. Now more than ever, Americans need a Congress that works.

Comments

[Aaror]

I agree with all but one part of your plan...
Why are we paying folks who we gave hundreds of billions of dollars in free airwaves for the use of public airwaves? Why not just say that 1% of their airtime, or value equivalent to that, must be given to candidates for office, divided based on public support. A 1% tax on broadcasters would give the candidates about the same amount of TV and radio time as they are currently paying for, but without the cost. Then you allow folks to donate for additional airtime/expenses, and it doesn't matter that much. You also get rid of the incumbent advantage.
There are folks who will call this "unfair taking of property," but it is our airwaves, given to the stations (or auctioned for a fraction of their value). 1% back isn't much.

[WritingFrontier]

So between the bail out bill and the candy store list of goodies, we are looking at one trillion dollars worth of bills to pay. Just how much is one trillion, and exactly what will it really buy? See Writing Frontier's "One trillion dollars" at

http://writingfrontier.com/2008/10/22/one-trillion-dollars/

[Poboy]

While I agree with your premise, that Congress must follow the will of the people and not their paymasters, your analysis is highly flawed.

Let's use your numbers.

The total of the bill was $850 billion.

The amount of the add-ons was $150 billion.

That's 17% of the money.

What about the 83%?

You want to talk about nickles, where I want to talk dollars.

That's where I agree with your premise. It is because of the paymasters that we have to pay the dollars.

I would argue that we didn't have hearings, the Democrats had no alternative, the public was left out of the debate, even when there was overwhelming opposition.

I suspect that if we had the full airing of these financial issues, and the public was truly informed about what happened, our politicians asses would have been in sling.