Explaining Earmarks

February 3rd, 2008 at 12:26pm Andrea Zimmermann

On Monday, President Bush opened the public’s eyes to the scandalous world of earmarks during his final State of the Union speech.

He blasted the budget line-items as wasteful spending and made the issue a centerpiece of his final speech before Congress.

But are these projects through typically throw a few hundred thousand dollars here and there to various projects in lawmakers’ home districts really all that bad?

I attempted to explain this complex issue in today’s paper.

Sadly newsprint is a finite space, forcing us reporters to streamline information. Sometimes this means we have to leave out juicy bits and background that we would love to share with you, the reader.

But here on the wonderful World Wide Web, we can throw all those extra tidbits your way.

Let’s start with some background.

Targeting earmarks is nothing new. Previous administrations have done it, Congress has done it, and here in Illinois, similar projects were at the center of the governor’s last ditch attempt to establish universal health care back in August.

The more and more research I did for this story revealed a new layer to the earmark process. Here’s an interesting background story to the $300 million project that proposed connecting one small Alaska town to a sparsely populated island, also known as the infamous “Bridge to nowhere.”

Although earmarks are just a small part of the federal budget, they are clearly important – so important they warrant their own page on the Office of Management and Budget Web site.

Although President George W. Bush targeted earmarks during this final State of the Union address, this is familiar issue for critics.

Last year Congress passed earmark reform rules, but many critics said the reforms were in-name-only.

Three days before Bush’s speech, House Republican Leader John Boehner sent Speaker Nancy Pelosi calling for further earmark reform.

Dear Speaker Pelosi:

The earmark process in Congress has become a symbol of a broken Washington. … Both of our parties bear responsibility for this failure.

We write tonight to notify you that House Republicans believe that the earmark system should be brought to an immediate halt, and a bipartisan select committee should immediately be established for the purpose of identifying ways to bring fundamental change to the way in which Washington spends taxpayers’ money.

In the spirit of bipartisan cooperation fostered by our recent cooperation on a short-term economic growth package, we offer our hope that you and the members of the House Democratic Caucus will join House Republicans in supporting these steps …

And here are the reforms he proposed:

• No more “monuments to me.” Lawmakers should not use taxpayer money to fund projects named after themselves.
• No more “airdrops.” The process by which Congress spends the American people’s money should be completely transparent. Members of Congress should not circumvent transparency by airdropping earmarks into bills in conference at the last minute.
• No more “fronts” or “pass-through” entities. Taxpayer funds should not be laundered through “front” operations that mask their true recipients.
• Members of Congress who request earmarks should put forth a plan detailing exactly how the money will be spent and why they believe the use of taxpayer funding is justified. Members of Congress who “secure” earmarks should place these plans in the Congressional Record well in advance of floor votes on those earmarks.
• To improve accountability, Members of Congress should require outside earmark recipients to put up “matching funds” where applicable so that American taxpayers do not bear all the risk for such expenditures.
• The Executive Branch should be held accountable for its own earmark practices. The Executive Branch asks for earmarks, too, and has done so under administrations Democratic and Republican alike. Members of Congress should hold present and future Administrations accountable for the way in which taxpayer-funded earmarks are used.

Although Bush had seven years to turn the spotlight on earmarks, some might think it is convenient that he chose to do so once his Republicans lost control of Congress. It should prove interesting to see what the Democrats choose to do with earmark reform and to see how it has a trickle-down effect to the Rock River Valley.

Entry Filed under: Uncategorized