The Return Of Earmarks
Earmarks are back! After 11 years in the political wilderness, the budgetary tactic has returned to Capitol Hill. This means that individual members of Congress were once again able to reserve chunks of money in the massive omnibus budget bill that passed last week. The practice was largely seen as completely out of control back in 2010 and became a rallying cry for the Tea Party movement and Republicans in general, which led to a complete ban on the practice in Congress. That ban has now been lifted, and this is the first budget that includes earmarks to pass in over a decade.
Is this development a good thing or a bad thing? Well, probably a little of both. The process has been reformed somewhat, but these reforms aren't all that stringent and could use some strengthening. The budget bill that just passed reportedly had over 4,000 earmarks included within it. If applied equally, this would work out to around eight earmarks per member of Congress, but that's not the way it worked out. Some Republicans refused to request earmarks, holding to their original stance that the practice was nothing short of organized corruption. And party and committee leaders got the biggest bites of the apple, it seems -- Chuck Schumer's name is attached to over 140 earmarks alone.
The total appropriated for earmarks is reportedly around $8 billion, which sounds like a lot until you take into consideration the overall size of the budget bill, which was a whopping $1.5 trillion. That works out to about one-half of one percent, which in the grand scheme of things really isn't all that much. But it does return a power to Congress that they had voluntarily ceded to the White House -- the power to microscopically direct funding to individual members' districts and states.
Again, earmarks had some positive aspects even if the process was susceptible to abuse. They had gotten completely out of control back in Barack Obama's day, with the poster child of wasteful spending being the "bridge to nowhere" up in Alaska. The last time earmarks were allowed, there were more than twice the number of them -- 9,000 -- as there are in last week's bill. And there was zero accountability. Any member could get one inserted anonymously so that if it drew heat it would suddenly become an orphan, with nobody claiming credit (or, more like, having to take the blame) for it. That has theoretically now changed, but the level of transparency is nowhere near what was initially promised.
As with most gigantic omnibus budget bills, the full text of the bill wasn't released until just before Congress voted on it. This particular bill ran to over 2,700 pages. And a single earmark can be a very short passage in the midst of that, directing a certain amount of money to a very specific project. Initially, earmarks were supposed to be trackable online. That is not the case, at least not yet. There is no big publicly-available database or spreadsheet listing all the earmarks and who requested each one. Members are now supposed to pledge that they and their family will not benefit personally from any of the earmarks, but there doesn't yet seem to be any method of enforcing this at all (or, at least, none has been reported on recently). So while they're supposed to swear they're not profiting through straight-up old-school corruption, if this isn't actually enforced by anyone it could be ripe for the type of abuses which arose in the past.
Republican Senator Mike Braun of Indiana is not a fan of earmarks, and he seems to have taken on the task of tallying up what was in the omnibus budget bill. In fact, his office seems to be the sole source for a lot of the data being reported on now (and that I've used in this article). Other Republicans also eschewed the new earmark process, which reportedly included Mitch McConnell, the Senate's Republican leader.
This isn't universal, however. Plenty of Republicans did indeed garner earmarks for their district, and they're now bragging to their constituents about bringing home the federal bacon -- a process that used to be a normal part of legislative politics for both parties. Politicians love to go to ribbon-cutting or groundbreaking ceremonies for some big project and boast of how they personally made it happen. This gets them plenty of good press and goodwill back home in their district, something they bank on and later deploy in their next campaign ads.
This is what the whole process is about, really, and it is why earmarks can indeed be a good thing overall. Because it is a method for gaining votes on the overall bill, even from the minority party. If you personally request a couple of million dollars for a new road improvement or local museum (or whatever else) and it makes it into the final bill, then you have a very strong motivation to vote for it. It's a lot harder to brag: "I made this happen!" when you voted against it, to state the obvious (although disingenuous politicians often will do exactly that -- attempt to take credit for something they didn't vote for).
Earmarks were always seen as the grease which kept the budgetary process moving, on both sides of the aisle. It was a way for the majority to rope in their own members who might be reluctant to vote for a particular budget bill as well as a way to entice opposition members into voting for something their party didn't have much say over. And this greasing of the wheels actually worked fairly well, in terms of corralling votes.
Some still object to the concept of earmarks by likening it to institutional bribery. Party leaders would routinely call members in behind closed doors and ask point-blank: "What is it going to take to get you to vote for this bill? You got a freeway interchange you need built back home? A water project? Some funding for a study by your local college? What's it going to take?" It was all a very obvious quid pro quo to gain votes. With taxpayer money being used to, essentially, buy votes. Which is very unseemly, certainly.
Back then, however, the opportunities for graft and corruption made things much worse. That highway project might be steered to a construction company owned by the congressman's brother, or wife. Or the children of the member might be on the board of some museum or college or private business who wound up being showered with federal taxpayer cash. That is all theoretically not supposed to be allowed any more.
Obviously, either more reforms are needed or the reforms put in place to usher in the return of earmarks need to be beefed up a bit. The process for requesting earmarks should include full information about the project -- including the name of who is requesting it -- being entered into a database before the earmark is even included in any bill. When the final text of the bill appears, the earmarks which have made the cut need to be immediately and transparently revealed on a public website that presents this data. Earmarks which don't make the cut might not have to be included, but the ones which did should be easily accessible not only to journalists but also to any American who wants to see what their tax dollars are paying for.
Also, it seems like a good and proactive idea to institute hard limits for how many earmarks can be approved for any one member of Congress. House members should be limited to one number. Senators might be allowed more earmarks, since they represent entire states instead of just individual districts. People in party leadership on both sides of the aisle as well as committee chairs and ranking minority-party members should probably be allowed more earmarks since they have more responsibility than a freshman member. But no matter how many each category gets, there should be a ceiling of a hard total number of earmarks allowed into any bill. Part of why earmarks became so politically toxic a decade ago was because there were just so many of them -- sometimes the total would top 10,000 earmarks in a single bill. But if there was a hard and fast limit for each member, than that total could never reach such levels again.
My personal take on earmarks is they can be a valuable tool for Congress to not just pass budget bills but do so in a much more bipartisan manner. If a large number of the minority party votes for a budget, then that party will be much less inclined to use the budget as a political bludgeon in the next election. It can cut down on partisan legislative gridlock, to put it another way. Earmarks allow even the lowliest members of Congress to go back to their constituents and say: "Look at this -- I got something done for you!" That is a big reason why voters elect candidates to Congress in the first place, to tend their own local needs. And the argument that House members and senators know their own states and districts a lot better than the White House or the executive branch is a valid point. Without earmarks, the money is appropriated in a giant chunk and then the president's administration decides how to dole it out. But they may not understand which projects are worthy and which are not, in terms of how the voters of the affected districts see things. Bringing earmarks back allows for members of Congress to fight for very specific things which benefit their constituents rather than leaving it to the federal bureaucracy to decide such things.
So while there still may be opportunities for abusing the process and while Congress really needs to up their game on the promised transparency, it will be interesting to see how earmarks actually work in the next few years of budgetary politics. If they lead to a steep increase in bipartisanship in supporting each year's budget, then they could wind up being a good thing overall. Further reforms seem needed, but this will no doubt become more obvious over the next year or two, and hopefully Congress will tighten the rules even further. But for better or worse, earmarks are back for the foreseeable future, which will definitely have an impact on the legislative process going forward.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Because you're always not excited about anything CW writes nor any comments you read here.
Don used to be more exciting!
CW, while I agree with you about the Earmarks-Gone-Wild phenomena, Congresscritters should be able to get local needs addressed. Where to draw the line? Can we line without Congress voting to hold itself to a higher level of public transparency than I feel comfortable expecting.
You'll always excite me, Don.
Don, I suppose I should feel bad that you're grumpy because I didn't turn my attention to you on your schedule, not mine. But I cannot.
Well, I just want to say, for the record, that I have enjoyed being a part of this place, immensely. I like everyone who has contributed here... It has been mostly fun. I shall be here until the end, no matter what.
Cheers, everyone!
@M,
Here's Beau of the Fifth Column addressing an LEO's question about minimizing bad shootings and other unnecessary mayhem. Beau used to train law enforcement-- what do you think? Please share any feedback about this video.
YES, it’s (14:40) but it is packed quite solid.
Please sharpen my understanding, as I was US Army but never law enforcement.
[9]
Whoa, Nellie! Until what end, Elizabeth? You ain't sitting around in Nikes, waiting on the Mother Ship to come fetch you away, right?
Right.
@MC
NOW Joe is wussing out on helping Ukraine turn back Putin. Instead of your boldified copy and paste job which, to be candid, is needlessly hard on my eyes. And which needlessly promotes absent minded scrolling through your contrarian contributions to Weigantia, if you must know.
My bolding articles and commentary is not to be annoying but rather to highlight the relevant portions of the articles/commentaries I comment on..
I use bold for article/commentary and italics for response to other commenters..
I could post LESS of the bolding but that would likely result in MORE comments..
Yer call.. :D
THAT ASIDE would you give (8:36) of your open mind listening to this Southern Gentleman Beau of the Fifth Column and thence tell me what you think about this YouTube Guy?
Not a big fan of youtube influencers or podcasters but in the spirit of our new found amity, I'll give it a go.. It probably won't be for a few hours when I get to work, but I'll give it a go.. :D
And just to throw something out for discussion...
If there is ONE "good" thing that has come out of the Russo-Ukraine war it's that, what with all the sanctions against Russia, the facts are coming out on how much Russia has funded the global warming fanatics and climate change con...
Hopefully this will be the final nail in the coffin of all the global warming/climate change hysterical nonsense..
@MC,
Here's Beau of the Fifth Column addressing an LEO's question about minimizing bad shootings and other unnecessary mayhem. Beau used to train law enforcement-- what do you think? Please share any feedback about this video.
YES, it’s (14:40) but it is packed quite solid.
Please sharpen my understanding, as I was US Army but never law enforcement.
Now you have definitely piqued my interest.. I will make an extreme effort to listen to this one..
WOW...
Again, in the spirit of our new found amity, I read the entire commentary word for word..
And I have to say I was mightily impressed..
"And I don't impress easily.. WOW!!! A BLUE CAR!!!!"
-Homer Simpson
This was actually a truly bi-partisan commentary. Not a single slam or attack on a GOP'er.. Nay, the commentary actually stated that they were using data from a GOP'er...
And, gods help us all, not a SINGLE attack or even a MENTION of President Trump....
While the shit always rolls down hill, apparently positive feelings of goodwill rolls UPHILL.. :D
My compliments to the administration for a well-written fair and balanced non-politically biased commentary..
And just to throw something out for discussion...
If there is ONE "good" thing that has come out of the Russo-Ukraine war it's that, what with all the sanctions against Russia, the facts are coming out on how much Russia has funded the global warming fanatics and climate change con...
Hopefully this will be the final nail in the coffin of all the global warming/climate change hysterical nonsense..
"We were even up against phony environmental groups, and I’m a big environmentalist, but these were funded by the Russians to stand against any effort, ‘Oh that pipeline, that fracking, that whatever will be a problem for you,’ and a lot of the money supporting that message was coming from Russia."
-Hillary Clinton, 2014
Like I said... If there is any good to come from Putin's insane war, it's that we're finding out how far Putin's tentacles stretch around the world...
Who did Biden listen to when he shut down the Keystone XL Pipeline???
Were they funded by Russia???
Enquiring minds want to know...
"It is vital to our national security to know if Vladimir Putin, the Russian government, or Putin’s allies are meddling with America’s energy affordability and security. If the League of Conservation Voters, the Natural Resources Defense Council, or Sierra Club have nothing to hide, then we look forward to seeing the evidence they provide by March 25th."
-House Energy and Commerce Committee Republican leader McMorris Rodgers
Mark your calendars people.. The brown stuff might be hitting the fan.. :D
I use bold for article/commentary and italics for response to other commenters..
I also bold for quotes... :D
As I said previously... We are, for all intents and purposes, at war...
So I hesitate to even have the appearance of partisan politics.. As evidenced by the lack of my comment-barrage of the last few days...
However, I am still inclined to call a spade a spade..
And pointing out the wisdom of Senator Tom's Cotton's commentary is in keeping with that..
Biden's timid leadership in Ukraine on full display in Poland MiG fiasco
While Zelenskyy has rallied his people, Biden has responded with timidity and half-measures
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/biden-leadership-ukraine-poland-mig-sen-tom-cotton
I won't post the entire litany of Senator Cotton's commentary.. I'll just suggest ya'all read it..
And, before anyone jumps 10-8 in my shit, keep in mind that the Senator's words are in keeping with the Weigantian commentary, What Is The Holdup With The MiGs?
So... It ain't just me...
@MC
OK, so I am watching your Beau video.. What I am going to do is just jot down notes as I am watching it and then go into more detail afterwards...
I am doing this from work I have some on my workbench, so it might take me a few to get all the way thru it..
Anti-Cop attitude front and center..
Why would ANYONE want to be "more critical" of LEOs?? Isn't their job hard enough without dealing with ignorant people who are overly critical??
Time Distance Cover..
There is a reason why this is no longer emphasized...
Tamir Rice.. Monday Morning quarterbacking...
It's easy to cherry pick instances like the Wal Mart shooting that went sideways..
For everyone of those, I can point to incidents where Time/Distance/Cover COST people their lives..
"Most bad shoots are because this (Time/Distance/Cover) was not applied."
And most tragic loss of multiple lives are because T/D/C WAS applied...
"Auditory Exclusion"... Also known as "Situational Awareness"... Disregard the irrelevant distractions and focus on the key elements of the incident.. Is it perfect?? Of course not.. When humans are involved little IS perfect.. But by and large, situational awareness SAVES lives..
"Give him a few seconds. He'll hear it.."
OR
He hears you just fine, he's just contemplating where he left his weapon and that "few seconds" he is given will give him time to grab his gun... :^/
"You can't kill someone because they succumb to a biological response"
Bullshit.. If the "someone" responds with the FIGHT option of FIGHT OR FLIGHT instead of FLIGHT and pulls a weapon, you sure as shit CAN kill them.. And if it wasn't just a dime bag that the perp was selling, if he was ALSO wanted in regards to a violent felony and chooses FLIGHT, you can STILL shoot him.. Or her..
Responding to biological urges doesn't excuse a perp's actions...
This ongoing "give him a few seconds" is the WORST possible advice given to LEOs...
Cops DIE in the blink of an eye... A few seconds is an ETERNITY to someone who wants to kill a cop..
"Give him a few seconds" my ass..
"So, if someone ran and exerted themselves..."
The solution to that is simple...
DON'T RUN...
Practically EVERY INSTANCE of someone dying in police custody or at the hands of the Police can be traced back to ONE SINGLE THING..
Failure To Obey The Lawful Orders Of Police
You don't want to die by a cop's hand??
OBEY...
The time to argue your innocence or your case is NOT on the streets at the time of the incident..
The time to argue your case is in front of a jury or an LEO review board..
If you choose to fight the law at the time of the incident.. The law wins EVERY TIME...
OK I just got slammed with work.. I'll continue later...
MC,
Please sharpen my understanding, as I was US Army but never law enforcement.
And my sincerest apologies for my past denigration of your military service...
It will always be a shameful memory best left in the past...
Just a little FYI for everyone ...
Tonight at 8pm Frontline on PBS will be premiering Putin's Road To War
Michale[24],
That means a lot...thank-you!
Michale[24],
That means a lot...thank-you!
It's long past due...
Well, it's never too late.
[21]
Don't tell the others, but that's exactly how I see Biden's performance to date. You gotta remember he was Barack "Red Line" Obama’s VP.
[23]
Good deal, you watched it. Only thing I'd ask is that you explain why, for example, T/D/C doesn't work, etc. I assure you that your arguments will always be more informative and persuasive with the reasoning included.
[24]
Apology sincerely accepted. Don't worry, we're all Big Bois here. Besides, God knows I've called you a bunch of unkind things in the past.
And maybe will in the future, too!
Be nice!
"There can be no offense where none is taken."
-Sarek Of Vulcan
:D
[13]
The other Weigantians and I use italics when quoting each other.
I could post LESS of the bolding but that would likely result in MORE comments..
Yer call.. :D
Yes!
Save the bold for the shouting for emphasis part of your original thoughts. I believe that will work better for you. Obviously, your call.
[31]
I miss Sarek Of Vulcan *sniff*
@M,
Lemme put it this way regarding bold italics and ALL CAPS.
I am a bassist. Before that piano, violin and rhythm guitar. In all cases once one gets halfway proficient at making their instrument say what they want they'll spend a time playing a million notes.
THE next major leap is to learn that,
What makes your playing tasty is the notes, yes, but more importantly it's the space between the notes.
So I suggest that the "less is more" approach will give your stuff more punch.
[30]
Shut up, or you might jinx us all and the Kumbaya might go poof!
See what I nean, Michale? Just a little dab'll do ya.
[25]
ONCE YOU'RE done dropping and giving me Twenty (for [30] up there) please accept Weigantia's thanks for the PSA.
YouTube has a number of PBS Road to war programs as well as numerous Putin analysis as well.
The latter are over an hour each, but I like that level of detail.