EARMARK

EARMARK REFORM: A GENUINE BUT MISGUIDED EFFORT TO SAVE MONEY

By Robert H. McElroy

(TheWeekInCongress.com September 27, 2007) - The hoopla over congressional earmark spending that began in 2006 over Alaska Senator Ted Steven’s request for a $300 million dollar ‘bridge to nowhere’ has, essentially, gone nowhere if going anywhere means that things have significantly changed.

The bridge whetted the appetite of citizen groups who believe that congressional spending not done in the light of day is likely hiding something. Corruption, trading project spending for votes, nothing good can come of things not done openly, they held.

Why, then, did such a blatant attempt to steer funds to one very narrow spending spree and a concerted effort by watchdogs and the media to expose it not result in a chastened Congress installing austere oversight? There are several reasons.

Although the ‘bridge to nowhere’ was one heck of a dip into the barrel, the barrel it came from was created for just that purpose. The Highway Trust Fund Stevens leaned on is less the source of earmarks and more a program created to manage them publicly. States pay in with transportation-related taxes and receive, in proportion to what they pay, funds for transportation-related projects they decide they want. Stevens, as the bill neared floor action, tucked in his $300 million request.

The discovery was evidence enough for watchdogs and the media that Congress was caught with its hand in the cookie jar. When the clamor that Steven’s bridge was the tip of the iceberg settled, however, it turned out to be not just the tip but most of what was beneath the surface. Scouring for other spending atrocities turned up some projects, but none approached the scandal-qualifying amounts of Stevens’ bridge.

In the end, some good came of this: The bridge project was withdrawn and future dipping into the pot for high-dollar projects is not likely as long as watchdogs are hovering. Congressional Republicans, no strangers to earmarks, took up the issue and pushed for an agreement with the Democrats to list all earmarks, their costs and sponsors and allow for amendments to cut them.

But what seemed like a win for taxpayers also showed Congress’ ability to absorb and devour shaming criticism without changing much. House Republicans, by supporting the efforts to open the earmarks to public scrutiny, moved into the position as defenders of taxpayers’ hard-earned money against the ‘tax and spend’ Democrats while Democrats took a bow for opening earmarks to public scrutiny thereby finally protecting taxpayers’ hard-earned money from years of abuse by the Republican Congress they replaced.

The sincerity of the effort to cut earmarks is questionable in that few amendments passed, most garnered well fewer than 100 votes and none of the amendment-supporters targeted earmarks in their own States. A good number of earmarks placed in the defense and homeland security bills by the White House were not confronted with amendments at all.

Concerns about earmarks are not frivolous, but may be a bit of a witch hunt and a good bit naive. A witch hunt if they are founded on the belief that most spending requests are political favors in exchange for political support, or worse. Does a congressman who gains support by campaigning to expand district education violate some ethic if he later earmarks funds for a community college? If the Defense Department puts out a non-competitive $2 million request for equipment coatings and the Representatives request the contract be given to a company in their district, why would they not?

And that brings to light a reason why targeting earmarks is a bit naïve. The Federal government produces money and it is returned to the Treasury in tax revenue. As long as the government is spending money, the economy is active. If the government only collected money and did not spend it, the economy would stall.

Earmarks are one way to get those funds spent locally, create jobs, and generate tax revenue. That was emphasized by Members who argued against cutting earmarks for projects ranging from a prison museum in Kansas to supporting local and regional industry research facilities. Inject millions into a town’s economy with funds that will increase housing and commercial development, improve opportunities for a community college degree or add a service at a local hospital and you have leveraged tax dollars considerably.

Do politicians benefit from delivering that check? Of course, and which elected official is going to come home and tell voters that their bridge or tourist attraction is wasteful spending?

The earmark reform movement is a valid one and is creating new tools to give those who want it, the opportunity to investigate every single dollar spent locally, but targeting earmarks as a way of solving abuse of taxpayer’s dollars is like treating the symptoms of a disease when the disease itself may not exist if more effort was put into preventing it. To truly protect taxpayer dollars, efforts should be directed at the tool governing taxes-the US Tax Code.

If watchdogs and the media want to protect taxpayers, the Code is where quid pro quo, favors made in exchange for campaign fund donations, can thrive. That is where taxpayers spend a bundle to provide an endless list of financial perks to for-profit entities and lawmakers can feather their political and financial nests behind closed doors. Drag that into the sunlight and you’ve got something.

No reproduction, language translation or distribution without written permission from TheWeekInCongress.com.(TM)