Congressman Jerry Moran recently joined with other House Republicans in a push for a one-year moratorium on earmarks.
“(This is) the first step in regaining the taxpayers’ trust, and this effort wouldn’t have been successful without Congressman Moran’s leadership,” said Congressman Jeff Flake (R-AZ), an advocate of earmark reform.
Moran added, “Spending is occurring at an alarming rate – our country is broke. This is a step to ending business as usual in Washington, D.C.”
While earmarks are often seen as wasteful Washington spending and indicative of a Congress that cannot control its own pocketbook, the process funnels millions of federal dollars that benefit both state and local projects. Even McPherson County has experienced the bright side of earmarks.
In fiscal Year 2009, Moran was able to secure $642,500 for McPherson County through the earmark process. The funds went to the McPherson Opera House and to upgrade Lindsborg’s wastewater treatment plant, demonstrating that despite the negative connotation that comes with the term, not all earmarks can be categorized as wasteful spending.
The Good and The Bad
Although there is no widely accepted definition of the process, the Congressional Research Service defines earmarks as, “provisions associated with legislation (appropriations or general legislation) that specify certain congressional spending priorities or in revenue bills that apply to a very limited number of individuals or entities. Earmarks may appear in either the legislative text or report language (committee reports accompanying reported bills and joint explanatory statement accompanying a conference report).”
Earmarks are widely confused with so-called “pork barrel” legislation, where an appropriation is made for a program or service that is concentrated in a particular area, but the costs are shared among all the taxpayers.
The group Citizens Against Government Waste classifies pork projects as being requested by one member of congress, are not specifically authorized, not competitively awarded, not requested by the president, exceeds a presidential budget request and is not subject to congressional hearings.
Earmarks, while sharing several of these traits, differ because it involves Congress’ constitutional obligation to appropriate funds. After making an appropriation to a federal agency, Congress can then dictate that a specified amount of already approved money be directed toward a particular project. A “pork barrel” project can be seen as a legislator’s want, while an earmark can be seen as prioritizing funds to where they may be needed most.
Or, in the words of Fort Hays Political Science Professor Chapman Rackaway, “one person’s earmark is another person’s vital need.”
The Sunlight Foundation, which works to increase congressional transparency, takes a negative view of the process, saying that earmarks place representatives in a position to reward contributors and secure funding without the benefit of public debate.
The foundation’s Web site states: “One of the problems is that there is no transparency or accountability in the system. Under current congressional rules, there is no requirement that a member identify his or her earmarks. Generally the more powerful members of the U.S. Congress get more earmarks. Members of the Appropriations Committees in the House and Senate are in the best position to secure earmarks. They can insert them into spending bills during closed committee meetings, with no public scrutiny. Earmarks are also offered to members to entice them to vote for a bill they otherwise would not vote for.”
While it is true that representatives do not have to identify the source of the earmark, some members of congress choose to do so.
“It shows that a member of Congress can bring home the bacon,” Rackaway said.
Another possible positive aspect of the earmarking process is that without it, Congress would be required to debate small appropriations frequently, instead of directing funds out of a single bill, which would made an already prolonged process even longer.
“There’s something to be said for (earmarks),” Rackaway said. ‘For anything to get done, 218 members of congress have to believe (the appropriation) will benefit their district. As voters, we don’t want to hear that.”
Delivering the Goods
Both Moran and Congressman Todd Tihart, in their race to succeed Senator Sam Brownback, have criticized each other over the use of earmarks, as proof that one can help manage the nation’s funds better than the other.
According to the Web site opensecrets.com, Moran, in the current Congress has managed to secure $17 million in earmarks, with the largest of the earmarks going to the Smoky Hill Air National Guard Range. Tihart, in the same amount of time, secured $62 million in earmarks, which mostly go towards defense projects, public schools, El Dorado lake and agricultural research.
The Ugly
Despite good intentions, some question the ability of Congress to police its own activities or policies.
“Congress won’t regulate itself in a way it can’t get around at some point,” Rackaway said. “When times get tough, they find a way around through loopholes, rule changes, or even ignoring the rules period.”
Rackaway said that earmark reform, if it were to be done in a way that was truly effective, would have to be handled at a much higher level.
“If you really want any number of things that change the structure and culture of Congress, you need a constitutional amendment,” Rackaway said. “The public has to be serious about wanting it.”
Rackaway also said that earmarks, given their localized nature, are usually tossed around as symbolic attempts at reform, but are rarely acted upon, despite the posturing.
“That’s the conceit. There’s so much posturing. I have no doubt of Moran’s sincerity (with earmark reform),” Rackaway said. “But others want to say ‘I fought for reform,’ when they really want window dressing.”
McPherson, Kan. —
