Tag: earmarks

Categories
deficits and debt folly national politics & policies

Earmarked Nation

pork, spending, Congress, debt

The big secret of the federal government’s budget is that there isn’t one.

Instead of proposing a rational budget, Congress spends money in huge omnibus bills, which sweep up most of the big items into a bucket which is then poured out into the economy. Since these buckets contain more money than can actually be found in federal coffers, the consequent deficits are covered by debt. 

Which accumulates. 

Looming larger and more ominous every year.

One way these omnibus bills are managed is that almost no one reads them. As former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said of Obamacare, ya gotta pass it to find out what’s in it.

How to get congressmen to go along with this financial chaos? Bribery. Make the spending binge even bigger with earmarks.

That’s where members of Congress place local boondoggle projects into the omnibus bills and get them through without having to convince anyone but the leadership of the projects’ dubious merits.

I used to talk more about earmarks. But when the Tea Party Republicans entered in 2011, they nixed earmarking “the pork.”

When the Democrats came back into power, the aforementioned Mrs. Pelosi brought them back, which, in the last big omnibus bill, pushed spending up an extra $8 billion or so.

Though Democrats love earmarks as an institutional practice, Republican protests are often merely pro forma. Alabama’s Retiring Republican Senator Richard Shelby, for example, “got $666.4 million down there to Alabama,” explained Tom Temin recently. “Sounds like there’s going to be a lot of Richard Shelby bridges, Richard Shelby schoolhouses, Richard Shelby highways.”

Thankfully, one of the concessions Speaker of the House McCarthy made with the Freedom Caucus (whom the president calls “ultra-​MAGA” and “semi-​fascist”) was to attack the earmarking practice again — after a failure to decide against earmarks late last year.

We’ll see how that goes. But the real test will be the abandonment of omnibus spending packages.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Midjourney and DALL‑E 2

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
insider corruption partisanship

Member-​Directed Funding

earmark, Congress, corruption

“Congress is about to bring back its secret weapon,” CNN headlined a column yesterday.

Congress? Weapon? 

Be afraid. 

Be very afraid. 

“Earmarks are back,” Chris Cillizza immediately informs readers … you know, “what is technically known as ‘member-​directed funding.’” 

Before you can say “terrible idea,” the cable channel’s editor-​at-​large does admit that “members securing money for pet projects in their districts could go wrong.”

Yeah. Right. Has gone wrong. Will go wrong. Is wrong.

“This is a sneaky big deal,” offers Cillizza nonetheless. “And a massive win for party leaders of both parties.”

Cillizza argues that it was a big mistake for Speaker John Boehner and the GOP leadership in Congress to take away their ability to reward individual congresspeople by stuffing a couple multi-​million-​dollar pet projects into the budget. What’s not to like for an incumbent politician? They get to hand out money right in their districts, with their name attached to it. 

As long as a member of Congress plays ball.

The way the party bosses say.

In return, that incumbent can likely stay in this nation’s heralded leadership for years, decades.

When “you realize that in taking away earmarks,” explains Cillizza, “Boehner robbed party leaders of their most potent weapon to keep their rank-​and-​file in line on key votes.”

Is it even plausible for the functioning of our democratic republic that “party leaders” — nowhere mentioned or given any power in our Constitution — leverage our tax dollars to essentially buy off our representatives in order to keep our representatives “in line” on other important votes?

No.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
Accountability government transparency insider corruption moral hazard national politics & policies porkbarrel politics too much government

Earmark This Bad Argument

earmarks, ear marks, pork, Congress, spending, corrumption, deals

With President Trump endorsing a return to earmarks, House Republicans too are reportedly “reconsidering” their usefulness and pondering “how they might ease back into the practice.” Lawmakers fret that they have lost too much power by giving up this instrument of corruption. (Not their characterization.)

Wikipedia defines “earmark” as a budgetary provision that “directs funds to a specific recipient while circumventing the merit-​based or [competitive] allocation process.” An earmark is a taxpayer-​funded goodie bestowed on a congressman’s constituent, the sort of crony willing to contribute to the bestower’s next election campaign in return. 

Quid pro quo, pay-​for-​play, bribery. Whatever you call it, there’s darn good reason why political leaders who fight corruption have fought to end earmarks.

Congressional Republicans imposed a ban on earmarks in 2011 to show that they were anti-​corruption. So why relapse? Well, “the time is right,” according to GOP Representative John Culberson, for Congress to prove it can use earmarks responsibly. His bad argument is that the “excesses” of a decade ago were committed by “knuckleheads [who] went overboard.” 

Somebody alert Culberson to the fact that many of the same knuckleheads are still in office. Ahem. Congress is not yet term-​limited, remember? 

The more basic point is that earmarks are by nature corrosive of sound government. President Trump’s only metric is apparently “getting [things] done” as opposed to obstructionism, preferring “the great friendliness” when we had earmarks. Sure, stuff got done — a lot more spending, a lot more bad stuff. 

To the extent they’re gone, earmarks should stay gone. The only appropriate action is to make it even harder to bring them back.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

 

Categories
links

Townhall: Earmarks and Ezra to the Rescue

This weekend’s Townhall excursion takes us back to the utopia of just a few years ago, when politics was stable. Yes, that’s an argument. It was made by Ezra Klein. Click on over, then come back here for a few choice bits of further reading.

Categories
national politics & policies porkbarrel politics

It’s the Season

Ho, Ho, Ho. It’s that time of year again. Shopping. Selecting the right gift. Thinking of those special someones.

Yes, it’s Omnibus Spending Bill time, the Satan Clause time of year, when politicians fill up the stockings of their naughty friends in the lobbying business, and give generously.

With our money.

This year, Harry Reid went all out. He pushed an omnibus spending package that included so many earmarks that Congress had to use its whole box of Crayons just to keep some order to the bill’s marked corners. Yes, there were over six thousand “special holiday gifts” for special interests. 

As I said, “Ho, Ho, Ho.”

That’s not an elfin chuckle, that’s a popular euphemism for what the politicians are who cooked up this list without checking it twice.

But an unseasonable gust took the wind out of Reid’s sails. Pressured by folks back home, the bill was soundly defeated. As Daniel Mitchell put it, it was the American people — not the special interests — who got the Christmas present:

[F]iscal conservatives, libertarians, and Tea Partiers have won an important battle, but this is just one skirmish in a long war. If we want to save America from becoming another Greece, we better make sure that we redouble our efforts next year. 

At last, special interests get a lump of coal. It’s something to celebrate. And repeat. Ho, Ho, Ho! Like that ol’ elfin chuckle.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


Categories
porkbarrel politics

One Very Fine Pig

The political season is upon us, and people get hung up on the goofiest things. Like jokes.

Sarah Palin jested about hockey moms and pit bulls, the biggest difference between them being, she says, “lipstick.”

Then Barack Obama fought back, attacking the McCain-​Palin ticket and Republican policy in general with another such comparison: “You can put lipstick on a pig. It’s still a pig.”

And, it turns out that them’s fightin’ words, because, well, Mrs. Palin is thought to “own” the word “lipstick,” and, some said, Obama had just called her a pig.

No he didn’t. If one has to deconstruct the whole fracas into symbols, Palin would be the lipstick, McCain the pig.

Of course, Obama was really talking about policies. But which policies of John McCain was Obama complaining about, which were … porcine?

How about McCain’s best issue, pork itself? Unfortunately for him, Sarah Palin has been too pork-​receptive in her days as an Alaskan politician. McCain has resisted pork. He’s not made requesting earmarks part of his job. Obama, on the other hand, though demanding that all pork requests be put up transparently, with full disclosure, is known to ask for quite a lot. In fact, nearly a million dollars for every day he’s been in office.

It’s a pity that in all this talk of lipstick-​wearing pigs, the real pork issue gets lost. No joke.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.