I just read the HuffPo explaination of what happened. There are no earmarks in the bill, in that there are no funds dedicated to specific projects. Instead, the money is slated to go to various federal agencies who will then distribute the money to projects through the same formulas and processes that they distribute whatever funding they get in the annual budget.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
There has to be some way to decide what projects get funded and which don't. I always understood the real problem with earmarks to be that the decision is purely based on political power. In the earmark process the normal mechanisms for evaluating projects developed over time with participation from the local level to the federal level are skipped. Most of the time there is some sort of long range and short range plan associated with the agency and projects are prioritized and funded in order. For example, the Federal Transit Authority (FTA) has a formula they use to divide up the funds they receive to each state. Each state then has a state transit agency who in turn divides that funding between local transit systems. The local transit systems have long range plans and the funds are used for projects from that plan. Along with the local priorities there are usually state and federal long range plans dealing with projects of larger significance. For example in interstate corridor of national significance the feds could direct the states in crosses to spend towards the overall vision, and the states could direct the locals to do the same.
A problem with an earmark is that a House member could get an amount of money for, say, a specific station in a community within the district. That money isn't extra, it comes from the original plot. What that representative and that community did was circumvent the local and state priorities. Also, earmarks are never for maintenance, there is no political capital in it. So upkeep is almost always the loser when funds are dedicated.
In this case, the GOP went to federal agencies to find out what the money might be spent on. Since the project have to be "shovel-ready", it is less likely that there will be magic pony type stuff on the list. The projects are more likely to be high priority because there has to have been some sort of development done previous to the Stimulus Bill for a project to be ready to go. Here's what HuffPo says:
"Appropriations Committee Republicans have been asking federal agencies exactly how the pots of money in the bill will be spent - since much of the spending isn't explicitly spelled out in the legislation," wrote Michael Steel, an aide to Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), in an e-mail to reporters.
"One response? Thirty million dollars for wetland restoration in the San Francisco Bay Area - including work to protect the Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse," he said.
So the project has nothing to do with Pelosi, it was chosen by the agency that oversees wetland restoration. Some one had to jump from that one sentence to "Pelosi's Mouse" This type of logic is GOP standard procedure these days, and frustrating as hell. We hear them railing against earmark spending constantly, and now they are railing against a technical awarding of funds to projects.
So tell us GOP, where are we supposed to go from here? Is there some better way we should be doing this, or were you just leaving?