“Alarmed by public dismay at their spending, House Democratic leaders last week announced an indefinite ban on budget earmarks to for-profit entities. Not to be outdone, House Republicans surprised even themselves by pledging a total one-year ban. In the Senate, South Carolina's Jim DeMint jumped in with a proposal to require a
one-year moratorium for both parties. Senator John McCain—that long-time scourge of pork—is preparing an amendment to ban all earmarks until the federal deficit is eliminated. This is one political rivalry worth applauding.”– The Wall Street Journal
Editorial
The Wall Street Journal
March 17, 2010
There's nothing like a 25% approval rating and the prospect of an electoral rout to focus the Congressional mind. And so it is that three years after vowing to clean up earmarks, House Democrats are embracing some reform—and in the process inspiring some healthy earmark one-upsmanship. Alarmed by public dismay at their spending, House Democratic leaders last week announced a
n indefinite ban on budget earmarks to for-profit entities. Not to be outdone, House Republicans surprised even themselves by pledging a total one-year ban.
In the Senate, South Carolina's Jim DeMint jumped in with a proposal to require a one-year moratorium for both parties.
Senator John McCain—that long-time scourge of pork—is preparing an amendment to ban all earmarks until the federal deficit is eliminated. This is one political rivalry worth applauding. It's also long overdue.
Nancy Pelosi became Speaker in 2006 in part because her party promised to clean up the earmark excesses that had earned the GOP a reputation for corruption and Bridges to Nowhere.
Yet aside from a few stabs at transparency, Democrats have practiced business as usual.
According to Taxpayers for Common Sense, fiscal 2010 spending bills contained 9,499 earmarks worth $15.9 billion, an increase over fiscal 2009's $15.6 billion. The reluctance to change is rooted in the Congressional belief that earmarks are the main guarantee of incumbency.
Earmarks were relatively rare until the rise of the Tom DeLay Republicans in the late 1990s. By 2005, the high-water mark of the earmark craze, both parties had linked arms to add 13,500 pet projects to spending bills.
Legislators crow about their largesse and use it to land campaign money from earmark recipients. This cash-for-votes mentality has become a symbol of everything Americans hate about Washington.
The recent decision by the House ethics committee to put aside allegations that seven House Members had awarded earmarks in order to secure campaign donations was another sign that Congress wasn't serious about changing this culture of special favors.
So the Democratic turnabout is welcome, if incomplete. The ban on for-profit earmarks will apply to a small portion of pet projects.
By the Appropriations Committee's estimate, the for-profit ban would have eliminated about 1,000 earmarks, worth about $1.7 billon, in fiscal 2010.
The ban would miss what Republican Jeff Flake of Arizona has shown to be "shadow" nonprofits that exist to funnel money to private contractors.
House Appropriations Chairman David Obey has mandated that federal inspectors spot-audit some earmarks to check for this practice, which might deter or uncover some funny business.
The GOP moratorium—which appears to encompass even tax and tariff earmarks—would be better, but give Democrats credit for starting the bidding.
The obstacle now is in the Senate, where Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is lukewarm and Thad Cochran of Mississippi argues that such a ban interferes with Congress's power of the purse and won't save much money in any case.
In fact, Congress still determines where nearly all federal money is spent, whether or not Members shovel billions to parochial projects. As for spending restraint, it's true that ObamaCare's subsidies will swamp even decades of earmark restraint. But you have to start somewhere, and earmarks are often a gateway drug to larger fiscal addictions.
No comments:
Post a Comment