More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Rep. Bill Cassidy

GET UPDATES FROM Rep. Bill Cassidy
 

Earmarks Should Require an Itemized Receipt

Posted: 07/16/09 04:04 PM ET

When our teenage son shops online with our credit card, my wife and I expect to see an itemized receipt.

We trust him. He's a good, upstanding young man. The itemized receipt confirms it.

Taxpayers should expect the same of Congress.

Because there is no itemized receipt for how Members of Congress want to spend taxpayer money, the explosion of earmarks in recent years has undermined taxpayers' trust in Congress.

Earmark abuse has led to numerous scandals and investigations. In some cases, it has taken Congressmen from the back bench, to the front page, and straight to the penitentiary.

Transparency, accountability, and rigorous oversight are the keys to cutting waste, fraud, and abuse in government. They are also the keys to regaining taxpayers' trust.

After pledging to "drain the swamp," Speaker Nancy Pelosi enacted new rules at the start of the last Congress requiring earmark sponsors to be identified alongside their earmarks in spending bills. Then, in February of this year, House Appropriations Chairman David Obey set forth new guidelines asking Members to post their earmark requests online when submitting them to his Committee for consideration.

Taken at face value, these reforms deserve our applause. Unfortunately, they do not work.

Because it is common for House leadership to bring spending bills to the floor only hours after the legislative text is released, there is often insufficient time to appropriately vet every earmark.

Furthermore, as The Hill newspaper reported , more than 70 Members failed to comply with Chairman Obey's new disclosure guidelines, and many who did comply were guilty of "using vague language to describe their earmark requests, burying their request links deep within their webpages and/or sprinkling each of their requests among a host of legislative issue pages."

Working with the Sunlight Foundation and Taxpayers for Common Sense, Congresswoman Jackie Speier (D-CA) and I introduced House Resolution 440 to remedy these problems and strengthen transparency and accountability in the earmarking process by:

  1. Requiring Members to disclose their earmark requests on their websites and include a homepage link to their disclosures using the word "earmark;"
  2. Requiring that Members maintain the disclosure link on their homepages for at least 30 days and requiring that disclosure pagesremain online for the remainder of the Congressional Session;
  3. Requiring any Committee accepting earmark requests to maintain a searchable online database of Members' earmark requests; and
  4. Prohibiting consideration of legislation containing earmarks that does not satisfy the above requirements.

These reforms will empower taxpayers, the press, and Congressional watchdogs with the tools they need to hold Congress accountable and cut out wasteful spending.

For example, you can go to my website right now and look at the itemized receipt for my highway bill requests. If you don't think they constitute an appropriate use of taxpayer dollars, you can hold me accountable for them.

Earmark friends and foes alike stand to gain from more transparency and accountability.

For anti-earmarkers, real transparency and accountability is an end in itself.

Earmarkers gain at least as much. Not only does transparency draw attention to quality earmarks, it also helps earmarkers escape from the cloud of suspicion that undermines what are often good faith efforts to support worthy projects.

In my six months in the House, I've found that my colleagues are generally good, upstanding citizens who work hard to do what's right for the people they serve. Giving taxpayers real accountability and transparency through itemized receipts for earmark requests would confirm it.

 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 10
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:20 AM on 07/17/2009
Please contact your webmaster and have them make the earmarks link more prominent. I could not find your "itemized receipt" on your web page. I suggest, if you wish to do this, that you make it a tab in the menu across the top of your page. I'm fairly web-savvy and could not find your itemized receipt within a reasonable time. I'm willing to believe it's there, but it doesn't do any good if it's not clearly accessible in plain language from the home page.
lastpost
see biography
05:30 AM on 07/17/2009
House Resolution 440(a)

5. The establishment of a bounty, (recoverable from the assets of any convicted person/s).
Payable for the provision of evidence demonstrating a misappropriation/misuse of tax revenues.
06:57 PM on 07/16/2009
While true that earmarking places greater control on funding disbursement, it has become synonymous with abuse and waste. Why do it? Ordinary citizens don’t care that Republicans used earmarking to deliver pork to their districts for 6 years when in control of the House, Senate and White House. Earmarks are easy targets for populist anger. Eventually, one party must resist its worst instincts and reform itself. Doing so would demonstrate that Congress is serious about spending restraint and deficit reduction.

http://axisofreason.com/2009/03/02/fiscally-irresponsible-democractic-congressional-leadership/
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
OneTop
Uh, is that a beer hall?
06:38 PM on 07/16/2009
Way to concentrate on the big picture there boss.

How about an "itemized list/receipt" for military/defence spending?

Better yet, how about campaign finance reform.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
IntelligenceIsBliss
04:54 PM on 07/16/2009
Forgive me if I am less than aroused by a call for fiscal conservatism from a Congressman from Louisiana. One can slide from one end of the state to the other on all the pork fat. How many billions did you get from the feds for Katrina cleanup? All because you are too stupid to move when a hurricane wipes you out every 10 or 20 years. How much do I have to pay extra in my home insurance premiums so you can rebuild your homes over the same swamp that flooded you out?

The DoD gets over 4 percent of GDP every year and no one is screaming for audits and fiscal responsibility there. Oh no, that might be called treason by the Republicans, to actually question the decisions of leaders during time of war.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LunaNik
Harm none; do what ye will.
02:04 AM on 07/17/2009
Way to be compassionate. By your logic, we should abandon the entire country.

Let's see now. No one can live in California because of earthquakes. Clear out tornado alley; that leaves most of the midwest unpopulated. Gulf Coast and eastern seaboard? Hurricanes. New England? Ice storms and nor'easters. So, where are you going to make everyone move?

You've chosen a screen name that doesn't fit you.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LesleyAnne
04:20 PM on 07/16/2009
It seems to me that so far, his colleagues are generally interested in either their party base, their reelection prospects, and, for Republicans, getting control of the reins again, with little going toward working hard to do what's right for the people they serve. That being said, one way to work with earmarks is not to allow bills to be brought the floor hours after the legislative text is released. These guys have enough paid staff to see that their requests go through the designated channels. And be more specific about how to describe the earmarks. What's the point of passing resolutions if nobody follows them.
03:51 PM on 07/16/2009
Earmarks are less than 1% of all governmental expenditures.

Would you call for the same "itemized receipt" for defense spending? The Fed?
03:16 PM on 07/16/2009
Great. . .

Now go get health care passed.
04:01 PM on 07/16/2009
Yea I agree with both sethrp and Porkbelly. DO NOT do anything else until you pass a solid public option for all heath care plan. The we can get righteous over the 1% part of the budget that is dysfunctional.