Watt Childress's picture

    Building a bridge to earmark reform

    Now that Republicans have regained some of the clout they enjoyed under President Bush, what will become of talk about balanced budgets and spending reform?  Will leaders model fiscal responsibility in fresh and innovative ways that broaden public support?  Or will they merely try to entertain partisans while repackaging the status quo?

    The issue of budgetary earmarking offers an early clue. Reports suggest that both major parties are split on this topic. On one side, leading Republicans and Democrats in the Senate are defending their power to oversee political funding for pet projects. On the other, House Republicans and the White House may be poised to ban earmarks for the coming year as a measure of fiscal discipline.

    Politicians who want to keep their hands in the cookie jar like to point out that earmarking only effects a small portion of the federal budget.  Nevertheless, the practice fosters government habits that undermine effectiveness and accountability. Inherent problems will resurface without action from policy-makers. Can conservatives and progressives work together to move forward?

    coalition of watchdog groups and lobbyists is advocating for the following five principles to guide earmark reform.

    1. To cut the cord between earmarks and campaign contributions, Congress should limit earmarks directed to campaign contributors.

    2. To eliminate any connection between legislation and campaign contributions, legislative staff should be barred from participating in fundraising activities.

    3. To increase transparency, Congress should create a new database of all congressional earmarks.

    4. To ensure taxpayer money has been spent appropriately, the Government Accountability Office should randomly audit earmarks.

    5. To promote congressional responsibility without stifling innovation, members of Congress should certify that earmark recipients are qualified to handle the project.

    While this list may not sound sexy, it offers a sensible platform for building consensus on improvements to budget policy. Progressives and conservatives often argue over spending priorities. That shouldn't stop us from affirming the common truth that all taxpayers suffer whenever our money is squandered on political favors and boondoggles.

    We should pay special attention to what happens with transportation, an area of government spending that's notorious for politically-driven folly. Officials are prone to route money toward new projects while our existing infrastructure crumbles. This appears to be the norm regardless of the party in charge.

    A truly conservative approach would prioritize transportation dollars for the repair and maintenance of existing infrastructure. To borrow an example from the Republican past, we should secure our levees before buying new bridges to nowhere. "Fix-it-first" should be our motto.

    We can't afford more tax-and-sprawl Democrats. We can't afford more debt-and-sprawl Republicans. Need trumps greed. Take better care of what we have, and we'll be in better shape to debate our wish-list of other programs and projects.

     

    Cross-posted at firedoglake.com and redstate.com.

    Comments

    It is going to be interesting to see if the republicans actually try to fix this economy.  I don't expect much in the next 2 years but more crazy talk and postering.  

    We do need to repair our inferstructure and that would create some real jobs.   


    I think you have very realistic expectations on that.


    If history repeats itself, they'll be plenty of crazy talk and posturing. And Democratic bloggers will spend a good deal of time making fun of the crazies. Politics will continue to devolve into goofy sports and entertainment.

    If history repeats itself, politicians will use the umbrella cover of "roads and jobs" to hand out dollars for new sprawl-driving pork projects while neglecting the basic upkeep of our transportation network. "Shovel-ready" will continue to be the mantra for boosting employment (never "blackboard-ready" or "stethoscope ready"). Presumably, bus drivers and highway patrolmen who are out-of-work will cheer because they can sign up for the road crews.

    I'm eager to be part of a new story, one where "conservative" truly means conserving resources and "progressive" doesn't rubber-stamp every parochial notion of "progress." 


    I'd vote for the writer of this comment anyday! Wink


    I'd like to believe such thinking might help inform political discourse, even embolden folks to consider candidates who aren't members of a particular party or who don't sport a certain political label.

    Back in the 90s I did run for office, in a declared race for county commission in east Tennessee. Lost by 12 votes in the Republican primary. Felt bad for a week, but then got back on the horse and spearheaded a county-wide referendum opposing a redundant half-billion-dollar road project. The project was rejected by citizens. We won by one vote. Last I heard, segments of that boondoggle were being built anyway.


    #1. Problematical IMO. I understand the intent and IMO it's worthy. But on the flip-side earmarks done responsibly *do* benefit various constituencies in a representative's home state. That would seem to either preclude anyone who might conceivably benefit from any government project from participating in the electoral process and/or prevent plenty of worthy projects from being considered because principals exercised their right to participate in democracy. This seems too blunt an instrument to me ... Think the Maxine Waters situation on steroids.

    #2. Hell Yeah! And they should be barred from lobbying for at least 10 years.

    #3. Sure, good idea.

    #4. Not sure what this is proposing ... audit how the recipient used the funds? If so. seems smart to me.

    #5. Isn't that kind of what giving an earmark implies in the first place? You would figure that *is* a congressperson's certification there is a qualified recipient. Seems superfluous at first glance unless there is some sort of penalty for being wrong.

    I'd add that earmarks should have some sort of relationship to the ostensible purpose of the bill into which they are inserted. I'm all for fish ladders or whatever, but they sure shouldn't be in a education bill.

     


    The big blunt instrument would be to ban earmarking entirely, which is apparently what Jim DeMint intends to do (much to the chagrin of some establishment Republicans).

    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/128335-demint-will-lead...

    We often hear that part of the root solution to electoral corruption is taking the money out of politics. I believe these principles would help move us toward that goal.

    Thanks for the comments.


    I totally agree. But there is a big difference between money spent on politics and appropriations. Unless we do away with taxation and governmental programs, it is not physically possible to "take money out of politics" entirely.

    There is always going to be some mechanism by which law makers apply the taxes collected to implement legislation and benefit their taxpaying constituents. It seems like the purpose of earmarks is to implement a general appropriation into specific actionable projects. I don't see this as an inherently bad thing. (the more I think about it, I really like the idea of random GAO audits of recipients though!).

    So while I am strongly supportive of the idea of reforming the process, I think it is also a bit of a red herring in terms of what you seem to be trying to address. I think the key to reducing electoral corruption lies in addressing campaign funding. Earmark abuse isn't really at the heart of it. Ultimately earmarks come at the end of a process ... we're getting screwed on policy long before it falls to the earmarking stage. Earmark reform kind of feels like addressing petty shoplifting when the big problem is grand larceny.

     


    We concur on the need for campaign reform. At the going rate it may be like pulling teeth just to get disclosure of corporate donations. Yet we should keep trying.

    From what I've heard, the practice of earmarking does have a political tit-for-tat influence on public policy. It enables lawmakers in positions of power to dole out appropriations as part of back-room deals on other votes. If you want this earmark, I need your compliance on that certain piece of legislation.

    Reforming this practice is indeed a baby step relative to the distance we have to travel. But it's a step we may be able to take in the near-term.


    Anne Applebaum has an article in the WaPost that compliments your piece rather well:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/08/AR201011...


    Hats off to Ms. Applebaum. Thank you, David, for flagging her article.

    "Despite its profligate spending policies of the past decade, the Republican establishment attached itself to this year's wave of anti-establishment resentment and must at least pay lip service to its goals."

    Will progressives who are equally resentful of establishment Dems plow common ground with conservatives? America needs to recycle the left-right coalition that challenged MFN trade status for China, WTO, and the bailout of Wall Street. Earmark reform is a policy area that could strengthen our working relationship. 


    So, how did this play over on redstate?


    http://www.redstate.com/wattchildress/2010/11/08/building-a-bridge-to-ea...

    Note that the sole comment/recommend at redstate echoes a point you made here -- "that earmarks should have some sort of relationship to the ostensible purpose of the bill into which they are inserted."

    Bridge-building, one wee post and comment at at time.

    Thanks or asking, KGB.

     


    Plus I'm finding some good things to read over there. Like this one, from redstate's editor.

    http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/11/10/why-does-tim-geithner-still-hav...


    Latest Comments