The Republican Caucus is going to vote today on whether or not to ban earmarks during the next session of Congress. Some say this will help reduce the budget deficit; John McCain made this a big issue during the 2008 campaign. Others claim that removing earmarks will only let the executive branch determine where spending will take place rather than having Congress do that. The arguments seem to me to miss the point. Earmarks are gateways to corruption and undue influence. They also promote cooperative spending where various congressmen spend more and more in concert with their peers. Both of these lead to out of control spending.
First of all, one needs to review what an earmark is. The term earmark refers to a place holder in a spending bill that allows a particular congressman or senator to insert a favored project for funding after the bill has been approved. In other words, when the Defense Appropriations bill is passed, there may be an item in it (the earmark) that lets a particular congressman (like Charlie Rangel of New York) make a determination how to spend $15 million in his district. If Rangel wants to use those funds for the new library on 135th Street he can do so, but he can also designate those fund to go to the society for the improvement of bowling alleys. The point is that Rangel gets to pick and no one else has anything to say about it. The biggest evil of earmarks is just that – no one but the congressman or senator gets a say in how or where the money gets spent. Congressmen can direct these spending items to their friends and campaign contributors. Imagine that someone who bundles $75000 in contributions to a particular congressman gets the benefit of a project to which that the same congressman directs $15 million under an earmark. It may not be a direct trade, but the corrupting influence of the practice is still there.
Allowing a congressman to direct spending through earmarks is like a narcotic; some congressmen have become addicted to these spending practices. Indeed, many congressmen use earmarks as the basis for a sizeable chunk of their fundraising activities. As they say, “one hand washes the other.”
So all of these congressmen are making sure that they and their colleagues are getting the right to determine more and more expenditures under the earmark programs. Does the country really need a museum to commemorate the discovery of bacon? Probably, an expenditure like that would not pass in congress, but in an earmark, Senator Pork King might well get the money for the project to satisfy an important constituent. A big chunk of wasteful spending gets through in that manner.
The American people are correct in asking congress to review each item of spending so as to stop wasteful projects. Will some get through – sure! But will some of the more outrageous be stopped – you betcha!
The total amount spent on earmarks is tiny compared to the budget deficit, but size is not the issue here. By ending earmarks, the Republicans in Congress will be saying that they are going to treat each expenditure in a way that will require it to stand on its own merits. Cash will not be rushed out on the whim of one member looking for contributions. Perhaps the best way to look at it is like this: when folks wear pink ribbons to combat breast cancer, it really does not stop the disease. Nevertheless, it makes a valuable point that we are all standing together to fight it and to find a cure. Dropping earmarks is the same thing. It will not close the deficit, but it will tell the country and the world that congress will no longer just spend and spend as it has for the last four years. Instead, each expenditure must really be necessary and Congress will look at each one before approving it.
No comments:
Post a Comment