I’ve noted that the debate regarding bringing back earmarks has surfaced yet again. It is particularly noteworthy because, unusually for Congress, this is a bipartisan issue – in other words, both sides are feeling the loss of earmarks in an election year.
Banning earmarks was one of the first victories the tea party achieved over establishment Republicans after the 2010 elections. The argument was that it typified "waste and out-of-control spending" which was, and remains, a cornerstone of the Tea party’s mantra.
Though earmarks for the most part represented less than 2% of the overall budget, it was true that it escalated to ridiculous levels when Republicans took over Congress in the 1990s and during President George W Bush's term. As Chris Weigant observed:
Earmarks went from numbering in the hundreds (in the early 90s) to numbering in the tens of thousands each year. Breaking this down, with 535 members of Congress, this equates to over twenty earmarks per congressman. That is -- obviously -- too many.
That trend continued for some members like Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell. The site
LegiStorm totaled 158 earmark requests by McConnell for a total of "$927,872,000" during 2009 and 2010.
In June 2010, The Washington Post reported that over half of the members of the House and Senate accepted nearly $2 million in campaign contributions that election cycle from organizations for which they had sponsored earmarks, according to a report by two nonpartisan watchdogs: the Center for Responsive Politics and Taxpayers for Common Sense.
"In too many cases campaign contributors are able to donate thousands of dollars and get millions of dollars back in earmarks," said Steve Ellis, vice president of the taxpayers' group. "This isn't altruism that is driving their behavior."
It was not altruism but self-interest which drove the earmark train and good riddance to it. The influence it had on Congress members and their voters was deplorable. Nevertheless, there’s no denying that it did provide a micro-boost to local economies and for me this is the conundrum of the earmark debate: I'm against the influence but for the effect.
The Influence
The line between the perception of earmarks as backroom deals which greased the skids in Congress enough to pass a few necessary bills, and that of outright bribery is so blurred as to be one and the same. Nevertheless, the case to reinstate earmarks argues that they would be a way of loosening the current gridlock albeit via exploitative use of taxpayer monies. I doubt, however, that this "greater good" scenario is either valid or viable as an argument.
Firstly, it is unethical and encourages extortion of the pay-to-play variety and secondly, given the circumstances causing the gridlock, I very much doubt this would work in the current Congress anyway. Because of their avowed opposition to all things Obama, I believe the Republicans would stick to their extreme resentment come what may. Certainly no attempted concessions on behalf of the President have ever moved them. If anything it has been a case of "give them and inch and they'll take a mile" as we saw all too clearly at work with the 17-day government shutdown.
Additionally, the idea of trading earmarks for votes seems demeaning for those on both sides of the bargain. Members should be thinking about what is best for their constituents and when they go against that (as in failing to extend unemployment benefits or deporting all undocumented immigrants), they should have to face those who are affected and try to justify themselves. There shouldn't be any "outs" to change their votes or, worse, to sweeten/obscure their failures when it comes to the effects their partisan politics have on their constituents.
Banning earmarks significantly decreases the influence incumbents have on voters come election time. It’s refreshing to see earmarks-empty incumbents struggling with “what I have done for you” to the satisfaction of their constituents. With no earmarks to offer them, they have to fall back on issues and justify their voting records. It goes a long way to leveling the playing field for their challengers, who have no earmarks to boast about.
Incumbents shouldn't be given an easy time of it, especially those who have been pretty useless on the whole (and there's far too many of those). In the past, they've used an earmark to promote themselves and that one local issue has been a strong attraction for voters, in spite of there being a challenger who could and would do a much better job. I think some of the close races we're seeing may be a strong indication of the effect no-earmarks are having on voters; they are being forced to look at a much broader array of their incumbent's claims.
One particular instance comes to mind: McConnell telling constituents that local job creation, "is not my job". It used to be, when earmarks abounded, and no doubt constituents are used to this largesse bestowed on them by their representatives. But no more. Given how few people take an active interest in politics, I'm wondering how many actually realize that earmarks have been banned. They may still be expecting them. Certainly both McConnell and Cochran are still running on their ability to “bring home the bacon” although the earmarks that made that possible are no longer functioning.
.
The Effect
The positive economic effect locally was undoubtedly a good thing and losing that micro-economic boost is a loss for all districts. So the question arises: how to eliminate the influence while keeping the effect?
I'd like to propose an Executive discretionary fund for the single purpose of benefiting every voting district once a year. With input from House Reps, Senators, lobbyists, state and local governments being strictly prohibited, it would be up to community groups from every electorate to apply for funding for their particular enterprise, with one project being chosen from each district. This would maintain, even increase, the positive effects of micro-economic boosts through a stimulus measure that focuses on local enterprises and not big business. With 435 micro-economic boosts, that will add up to one huge macro boost nationwide. Also, with careful structuring of the process, it has the advantage of being able to cut out the more ludicrous ideas for earmarks that have been seen in the past.
Essentially I envisage the project as comprising a broad-based group of experts including engineers, economists, zoologists, botanists, architects, plus those in the fields of social work, medical, legal, education, tourism etc, and that from them would be chosen a nonpartisan core panel. As each submission comes in from each community group, it would be delivered to the relevant experts and evaluated against a previously-agreed set of criteria. All recommended submissions would then be passed onto the core panel to determine final selections. The successful projects would then be announced by the President.
It would be a unique way of boosting local economies (which can only do the whole nation some good) as well as communicating to all Americans that they matter and the federal government is there to help them at a local level as well as through national policies. It would also go some way to countering the negative narrative Reagan started with: “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."” It’s time to turn that on its head and show that the government is here to help - conspicuously, constructively and locally.
Yes the President will take credit for it and that’s no bad thing either, especially if the project is implemented during their second term. It would then be up to subsequent presidential candidates to decide if they want to continue the project or not.
Congressional members should live and die politically by their own actions/inactions. Don't muddy the waters with earmarks – they're muddied enough with other kinds of bribes and propaganda. However, retaining the economic benefit is a worthwhile goal and a conversation well worth having.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~❀~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~