The real problem is pork-barrel spending — wasteful spending by members of Congress who simply want to bring money home for their districts, no matter what. But recently, there has been a public outcry over earmarks in general, even when they’re done correctly. Think about this for a moment: If our members of Congress aren’t inserting spending into spending bills, who’s supposed to be doing it? The reason all spending bills must originate in the House of Representatives is that the representatives understand their districts and their needs. As long as spending bills stay within established budget guidelines, doesn’t it make sense to let our representatives direct the spending where it’s needed most?
In signing the long-delayed budget yesterday, Barack Obama tried to take a nuanced approach to earmarks:
Done right, earmarks have given legislators the opportunity to direct federal money to worthy projects that benefit people in their districts, and that’s why I’ve opposed their outright elimination.
Obama is absolutely correct — many earmarks achieve worthy policy goals. These days, earmarks are often derided as “pet projects,” but it’s not always that easy. Sometimes, they are pet projects with little merit, and those projects should be eliminated. But many earmarks are worthy projects that meet state and Federal policy goals.
For example, here in Minnesota, after about 25 years of planning, we finally built our first light-rail line. As with all major transportation infrastructure, we received substantial Federal help — help which was approved by the Federal Department of Transportation, and which was actually delivered via an earmark from Congressman Martin Sabo. This project was approved by the Federal government, the State, and local elected officials. That’s not pork — it’s policy. You may disagree with the policy, but that’s a separate issue. The point is that earmarks are often used to deliver money for previously approved projects.
Let’s reform the earmark process, not eliminate it. So far, I like the idea I heard from Dianne Feinstein the best:
Decide that earmarks are to be a certain part of the budget. They’ve been ratcheted down over the years… set a certain percent, so every chairman of an appropriations subcommittee knows exactly what we have to work with.
I also agree with Obama that earmarks should go through a competitive-bidding process, just like any typical public spending.
What else should be done to reform earmarks? Leave your thoughts in the comments.
I can’t thank Tim Walz enough for his honesty and transparency in seeking Federal funding for worthwhile projects needed in the 1st CD.
Unlike Michele Bachmann and John Kline, Tim talks with Community Leaders as to find out what the needs are. To not seek Federal Funds for one’s District is to say to the constituency, “I can care less if Bridges needs replacing or roads to be redone to assure safety.”
Great job Tim Walz! Grumble. I’m in Klineland. Hey, we even had a bridge declared “worst in the state” down here.
For all the hand-wringing about earmarks Republicans sure do know how to bring home the bacon. Just look at the South and the disparity between federal tax money collected and federal tax money spent there. We pay in more than we get and they pay in less than they get. And personally if my Rep and Senator are not bringing federal money back into my district or state, why did I vote them in the first place? Look at that moron Governor of Louisiana complaining about volcano warning research while not complaining about money spent on hurricane warning research. Don’t you suppose those Americans living in Alaska, Washington and Hawaii with active volcanoes in their backyards might like a little warning?
Pork is what the other guy is getting. Vital federal projects are what I am getting.
Alaska, in addition to certain southern states, receives more ‘pork’ than they pay into the federal coffers.
“And personally if my Rep and Senator are not bringing federal money back into my district or state, why did I vote them in the first place”
Hmmm… to enact policy? To ensure your voice is heard on the major issues of the day?
I view Collin Peterson’s job on Agricultural as to run the most effective and useful DoAg possible. You seem to view his job as to funnel dollars to Minnesota. Fundamental difference, I guess.
It is inherently impossible for Democrats to deliver on their campaign promise of fiscal accountability without actually reviewing each dollar that is allocated via the designed review process. It stands to reason that if you are fiscally responsible, you understand and approve what you are appropriating dollars toward.
That is the problem with earmarks. Earmarks are not Jim Ramstad securing funding for I-394. Earmarks are when you push through an expenditures that your comrades have no chance to review, understand, or vote intelligently on.
What if each spending item had to be voted on separately so the merits of each could be examined? The bills would still be moved through committees so they would be out in the open. Perhaps they could be lumped together once approved into groups of ten or something less than 9000 for the actual votes.
The American political spoils system is like Apple Pie and Mom. Been with us forever and for all the fattening sugar and the over protectedness, works. I don’t see Republicans in practice looking towards governing for the greater good, examine the last administration when they controlled everything. No bid contracts to Halliburton with an extra helping of high priced criminal mercenaries from Republican donor companies. Why am supposed to believe them now?
Do any of the examples the Republicans use for “bad” earmarks make sense. They are up in arms over an Iowa earmark to study odor relief for hog farms. Ever drive by one? Ever have a hog operation move into your county and watch the real estate values drop? Seems like a good research project to me. Sort of goes with the volcano issue… not a problem and a waste of tax dollars if you are not effected. The only hurricane I was in was in Japan, where they are called typhoons. Why are they spending my tax dollars on NOAA and telling those idiots who insist on living in Hurricane Alley when to run inland? Same goes for educating kids that I’m not related to or feeding hungry people that don’t have guns to rob people. Not my problem… see it is easy to think like a Republican.
amuseinc -
You’re making the age-old liberal mistaken assumption. It is the one that assumes that if you want to help people, you must do it through tax dollars.
Hey, studying hog farm stenches may be a great thing to do. Let the people who live within a mile or two of hog farms pay for it. Voluntarily. There are enough of them — if you pool that money, you’d be able to pay for a good study.
But no — the great American wealth shift is off and running, don’t want to stop it now. The man who campaigned on hope and unity is using fear and demonizing Rush Limbaugh to push this massive agenda through.
Are you honestly suggesting that national issues be handled piecemeal on a local level? There are hog feedlots in 43 states, varying from one in Nevada to 3,876 in Iowa. Each one has the problem and you want each one to go through the process of having the surrounding “landowners” to pay for the study. I have no idea why private dollars would want to pay for this study. Followed by each one paying for the resulting patchwork of solutions, assuming that the money could be raised and the appropriate agricultural scientists exist in every one of the 43 states. I have my doubt about the ag expertise in the area in Hawaii with 3 operations, Idaho with 3 and Arizona with one.
I know for a fact that Iowa’s agricultural expertise at the university level is better than excellent. Now why except for foolish Republican ideology should this problem occurring in close to 90% of the states not use federal tax dollars dedicated to the state with the best available scientific talent? Is it that the earmark is wrong or that the whining from Republicans and you are bullshit?
Dan you are making the typical right-wing mistake… all problems are not local issues, the market is not the solution nor the source of all good things. On top of that there are issues that are federal problems and need to be solved with federal tax dollars. Remember that if we follow your mentality we don’t invest in the basics, we don’t invest in nonmilitary use computing and you can forget basic medical research.
Take diabetes research. For the last 40 years major advances have been made in the maintenance of the juvenile and adult diseases . Only recently has research, federally and privately supported, been made into cures. Why? Because the pharmaceutical industry has a marvelous business selling drugs and insulin to keep diabetics alive. Cure the two diseases and all of sudden the pharmaceutical industry substitutes a one time income opportunity for a lifetime of profit. What possible reason would the stockholders or management have for encouraging research in a cure versus maintenance?
It’s all a big conspiracy. You’re right.
Dan is reality pissing in your cornflakes? Because you need to see things for how they actually are. All earmarks are not pork and even the pharmaceutical companies publicly admit they are more interested in maintenance research than cures for diabetes.
This is not complex stuff but you need to listen less to political talking points and investigate the background. Ideology runs the Republican Party more than Michael Steele and Rush Limbaugh combined. They are in constant pain as they shove round pegs into square holes and insist they know what they are doing. Republicans insist they are financial geniuses yet the two biggest domestic economic meltdowns have taken place under their watch. Democrats are accused of being spendthrifts yet the last time the federal budget was balanced it was under a Democratic president.
And yes, reality has a liberal bias.
You’re right — all earmarks are not pork. But all earmarks have something in common — they game the system. They push through an expenditure which our elected officials do not have an opportunity to understand or vote intelligently on. Is that the way you want government to run? Where the Slickest politician wins, and the hard-working public servant loses? Not me.
If an expenditure is such a good use of your and my money, for the common good, then why wouldn’t it be able to stand up to a couple weeks of review and a discussion at a committee hearing?
I’m not saying this from a Republican, Independent, or Democrat angle. I’m saying this as that kid who took 10th grade civics, and thought due process and a representative democracy made alot of sense.
If you prefer a method of earmarks, that is fine for you. But don’t, then, claim that your party is the one of fiscal accountability. The two notions completely counter each other.
“If an expenditure is such a good use of your and my money, for the common good, then why wouldn’t it be able to stand up to a couple weeks of review and a discussion at a committee hearing?”
Arguably, it should, but requiring congressional review of every individual item would just mean the review isn’t going to happen. Congress has neither the time (remember making policy?) nor the expertise to review every bridge or drainage ditch improvement in the federal budget. What would happen is that the need for individual expenditures would not be decided by members of Congress (who, one hopes, act on input from their constituents) but by unaccountable bureaucrats in the executive agencies. In other words, requiring review would result in no review (or a paralyzed Congress). Not a great choice, by any means.
Dan, I’ve always taken the hopeful path in politics. It comes from shaking hands with the Happy Warrior twice. I support politicians that in a general way agree with my viewpoints. No litmus tests, but a sense of intelligence, morality and well guts. Except for the last one most Democrats seem to fit the bill. Then I watch from the sidelines and see if the person in question deserves my further support. Hey I’ve been burned many a time but I have also enjoyed my Minnesota politicians. Hubert Humphrey, Walter Mondale, Eugene MaCarthy, Paul Wellstone and now Al Franken represent what I am talking about. Didn’t like Humphrey on the Vietnam War and question Franken on his early support for the Iraqi debacle but you get the idea.
Funny how not a single Republican in the 20th or 21st Century has proven moral, smart and supportable. Some sure have the guts or should that be gall to shamelessly lie to constituents. I disagree with their basic take on government, governing and reality so I don’t trust them enough to vote for them. Ever. Except Arnie Carlson who got thrown out of that party because he was smart, moral and willing to work for Minnesota. Instead you have Gimmicky Timmy Pawlenty, Duke Cunningham, Mark Foley, Richard Nixon, Bush One and Two as your standard bearers.
The last thing I want is to have to spend an hour a day trying to see what my Congressman is up to… followed by an hour on Senators, one for governor and maybe a couple of hours on the mayor. I need to work to earn a living and well try to live my life. You want every single governmental issue addressed by the citizens versus a representative democracy… you go right ahead with that. It might be easier to just run for office and get it over with. And quite bluntly I expect the experts in science and technology listened to more than religious whackjobs with a 6,000 year old axe to grind.
“Funny how not a single Republican in the 20th or 21st Century has proven moral, smart and supportable.”
That kind of attitude is part of the problem. Divisive. You want Democrats to prevail, not the American people. Oh, you want the American people who happen to agree with you to prevail.
Open your mind. Open your mind.
“Instead you have Gimmicky Timmy Pawlenty, Duke Cunningham, Mark Foley, Richard Nixon, Bush One and Two as your standard bearers. ”
Ahh.. you’ve just earned a distinction of not being worth debating with. Duke Cunningham and Mark Foley a standbearer? Richard Nixon? Heck, Ash Madia wasn’t even born when Nixon had power.
Based on that list you offered up, I doubt there is common ground to find with you.
“Ahh.. you’ve just earned a distinction of not being worth debating with.”
Oh, the irony!
Dan, you’re actually very very wrong about most earmarks. You’ve fallen into the ol’ John Kline Smokescreen with this idea that most earmarks are things that haven’t been reviewed, aren’t understood, and can’t be intelligently voted on. The vast majority have been vetted by the professional staff on the Appropriations committee and now that the democrats are making people put their names on them, you know exactly who wants them. There are papers that get written on every single earmark requested (and not just by the Congressional staff, usually by the departments in the executive branch who would later administer them — I should know, I used to write some of those papers!).
The biggest problem with earmarks is that seniority can trump utility. But that’s always going to be an issue in Congress so long as seniority exists. and with more transparency, it becomes less of a problem.
Members of Congress have a constitutional duty to mark up the federal budget and allocate resources where they fit. And very often in the house they will have greater understanding of the urgency of some matters and the local needs than the executive branch.
We’ve already eliminated the last-minute earkmarks that got stuffed into conference (a big GOP feature when they were in charge) and we’re adding more transparency. And at the end of the day, these are a very very small percentage of the budget and the appropriations bills, so this is more of a mole hill than a mountain.
“And at the end of the day, these are a very very small percentage of the budget and the appropriations bills, so this is more of a mole hill than a mountain.”
I agree actually. If I could allocate my efforts toward the one thing that is going to spell fiscal doom for America, it would not be earmarks. Not in the least. It would easily be entitlement reform — the runaway train that just keeps picking up speed.
Good post, Josh.
Danthe”Man”,
“It would easily be entitlement reform — the runaway train that just keeps picking up speed.”
I agree Danthe”MAn”. The CEO culture of entitlement spells Americas fiscal doom.
Great Job!
I’m not going to disagree with you, Nitro.
I don’t care who gets the entitlements. Medicare recipients, Social Security beneficiaries, Welfare recipients, the rich who have grown accustomed to the tax breaks only they qualify for….
Sustainability is the key. Medicare isn’t sustainable. Social Security isn’t sustainble. Medicaid… well, it is already a miserable failure. And, Nitro, I agree with you: CEO pay trends aren’t sustainable. A CEO needs to be paid what he or she is worth — whether it is nothing or $10 million a year.
Entitlements spell doom for America, more than any single other domestic issue.
Danthe”Man”,
On “Social Security”,
Are you suggesting people work until they die?
What’s your solution then?