During the last two years presidential rivals Barack Obama and John McCain both campaigned for a change in the rampant use of earmarks, which steer tax dollars to congressional pet projects.
A fundamental question is whether all earmarks are bad earmarks. It’s tempting to say “yes,” given the outrageous number and lack of standards for allocation of funds in the past. However, earmarks have their purpose. They give to elected representatives, rather than an unelected administrative body, the power to direct public spending.
The problem with earmarks is that they are too often hidden from public view, at the unchecked discretion of a single legislator, and literally thousands of them can be attached to a single piece of legislation. While many grants of funds are to government institutions such as police, fire, schools, hospitals and various infrastructure projects from parks and libraries to memorials, others have more questionable public benefit. All bring rewards back to legislative sponsors, at least in thanks, if not campaign contributions and political support.
The earmarks issue sat quietly during the first fifty days of the new President’s term but took center stage again this week, when congress passed a government-funding bill with 8,000-plus earmarks.
President Obama will sign the bill despite his campaign position and express reservations. Taking him at his word, he says that the earmarks were written into legislation over the past year, and now, is not a reasonable time to veto the bill and force congress to start again. In addition, less than 1% of the funds budgeted by the legislation are for earmarks, and the President does not have authority to strip the legislation of any parts of the bill prior to signing it.
It’s an all or nothing choice.
Senator John McCain, who has decried earmarking for a number of years, sought to strip the legislation of most earmarks and, having lost that bid, called on the President to reject the bill. Other leaders asked for a moratorium going forward, doubting that congress is capable of reform.
For those skeptical of the President’s approach, it must be difficult to trust that while allowing earmarks today, he will reform the process tomorrow. Undoubtedly the public is beyond frustration with the apparent lack of fiscal responsibility, so the system must be changed even if some projects are worthy.
The President’s words are forceful:
“I recognize that congress has the power of the purse. As a former senator I believe that individual members of congress understand their districts best and they should have the ability to respond to the needs of their communities. I don’t quarrel with that, but leadership requires setting an example and setting priorities and the magnitude of the economic crisis we face requires responsibility on all are parts. The future demands that we operate in a different way than we have in the past. So let there be no doubt. This piece of legislation must mark an end to the old way of doing business and the beginning of a new era of responsibility and accountability that the American people have every right to expect and demand.” (CNBC broadcast)
Under the President’s proposed reforms, all earmarks must:
- be publicized on sponsoring legislator’s website in advance
- be open to scrutiny at public hearings where members must defend their decision
- receive a higher level of scrutiny for funds given to private entities, and have competitive bidding on all private contracts to for-profit companies
- be subject to opportunity for presidential revision and rejection of individual earmarks
Congress has proposed new rules for earmarks as well, and they are similar, except that they fail to provide the President with the authority to reject individual earmarks, an important checks and balances aspect of the President’s proposal. Given congress’ record, and given the amount of public funds at state and the corrupting power of access to tax payer funds, the requirement of a public hearing are not enough. The political benefit to individual legislators who steer money to parts of their constituency, should be countered by being subject to Presidential scrutiny and revision.
Of course, the President already has the authority to veto proposed legislation. However, as in the 2009 government spending bill, earmarks may be included in legislation which is otherwise necessary, be it to keep the government operating, for national defense or other crucial purposes. Unless the President can strip specific instances of wasteful spending from a bill he will not always be able to insure oversight. Congress has shown itself incapable of fiscal responsibility, and trusting the fox to guard the henhouse is not enough.
The President acknowledges the dim view of the public towards legislative fiscal responsibility when he states that he wants government to inspire trust and confidence, not cynicism. Despite public skepticism the proposed reforms will make a difference. If a legislator has to publicly defend a grant of funds, their career will be on the line if the school or freeway is later found to be poorly constructed or too costly for its real value.
In the past, legislators were even allowed to earmark anonymously. Those days are gone. The benefits of the imposition of reforms will take more patience than the instant gratification of a veto or moratorium, but if the public takes note, the results will be profound.
