It is so easy to forget the most basic lessons. Why did the Democrats succeed in such historic fashion in the 2006 elections? The National Exit Poll of 2006 was rather explicit – 42% of those polled rated corruption and scandals as "extremely important", more than for any other category. More voters found the issue of corruption extremely important than the war in Iraq, than terrorism, the economy, or illegal immigration.
The Democrats in Congress have responded to this clear mandate with characteristic tenacity, by handing Republicans an easy victory.
Other "namesake projects" in the bill include the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at City College of New York, named for the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee; the Thad Cochran Research Center at the University of Mississippi, named for the senior Republican on the Senate Appropriations Committee; and the Thomas Daschle Center for Public Service at South Dakota State University, honoring the former Senate Democratic leader.
The bill also includes "Harkin grants" to build schools and promote healthy lifestyles in Iowa, where Senator Tom Harkin, a Democrat, is running for re-election.
As the story makes abundantly clear, the problems of earmarks, and particularly of "namesake projects", is hardly a uniquely Democratic one. But the utter ugliness of $2 million for the Rangel Center, $1 million for the Daschle Center, and $6.5 million in "Harkin grants" will make for easy headlines and attack ads. And deservingly so.
Lest we forget, the projected federal budget for this year is $2.9 trillion, which includes a further $155 billion in borrowed funds because the record $2.8 trillion federal tax receipts are insufficient to cover all spending. Now, while earmarks hardly cover all of that deficit, they make a considerable impact. Earmarks alone account for over $1 billion in spending in a bill providing $150.7 billion for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. Depressingly, this is an improvement: in 2005, the bill had over 3,000 earmarks and totaled over $1.3 billion.
Nonetheless, this is a Republican victory, against all odds and reason. President Bush has declared he intends to veto the bill, which conveniently obscures the fact that his Presidency has seen the largest increase in federal discretionary spending since that of Lyndon Johnson. Among the few lawmakers who voluntarily decline to seek earmarks is Minority Leader John Boehner, who is matched by no Democrats of similar stature. Republicans Ted Stevens and Thad Cochran have over $135 million in earmarks between the two of them, more than the top 10 Democrats combined, but Democrats outnumber Republicans 12 to 8 when it comes to who the 20 representatives with the msot earmarks are. Representatives from the Republican stronghold of Alaska received $96 million in earmarks sponsored by themselves alone – more than the two most populous American states, California ($50 million) and New York ($41 million) combined.
Yet Democrats have been strangely silent on an issue which they campaigned on and won on a mere year ago. All this while President Bush, Rep. Boehner, Sen. McCain, Rep. Blunt, and Rep. Flake have crowed to anyone with a note pad or microphone. Too my repeated dismay, Sen. Barack Obama, who actually has taken the initiative of sponsoring and helping to pass the Coburn-Obama bill creating a public database of earmark projects, has let this opportunity largely pass. Others, such as Sen. Hilary Clinton, are unable to lead on this issue, having received $530 million in earmarks, more than any other Presidential candidate.
The writing is clearly on the wall: in the age of blogs, the formerly secretive earmarks process is now out in the open. And the electorate is contemptuous of it, as well they ought to be. At a time when the Democrats in Congress have actually showed greater restraint than the Republicans did before them, they are handing the issue away, both through the utter idiocy of the namesake projects and the silence of Democratic leadership. They are doing so in spite of their own loudly voiced campaign promises of a year ago, and the obvious data showing the strength of voter interest in the issue.
I have always strongly disliked it when commenters accuse the Democrats in Congress of spinelessness. It is my belief that the behavior of the Democratic Representatives is a mirror of the behavior of Democratic constituents and fundraisers. The behavior of the Democratic Representatives on earmarks has been that of people too ashamed of their own corruption to crow about their real but meager gains, yet too addicted to the benefits of that corruption to actually make real change.
But what of we, the Democratic people? What is our shame, and our addiction? What will we do?