looks to be more complicated than some Democrats might care for. Or so says this article in the AP today about the multitude of Congressional, "pet projects," which channel taxpayer money into local funding for districts, assuredly for lawmakers to curry favor for their reelection campaigns. The big problem with this of course is in the abysmal state of budgetary affairs in Washington, not to mention the enormous and constantly growing deficit:
The temporary ban on earmarks — footnotes in spending bills that lawmakers use to deliver federal bacon to their states — has been greeted with applause by budget hawks and is seen as a savvy political move. But many in the rank and file are not happy.
The fact that the rank and file are displeased if anything, signals how necessary and beneficial limiting earmarks would be...
Earmarks have exploded in number and cost under GOP control of Congress and Congress got a black eye when former Rep. Randy Cunningham (news, bio, voting record), R-Calif., admitted taking $2.4 million in bribes in exchange for earmarking projects to defense contractors. The Bush administration and budget hawks have protested in vain.
Obey and his Senate counterpart Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., have promised to eliminate lawmakers' pet projects as they fashion a catchall spending bill to close out about $463 billion in unfinished budget business — dumped on them by outgoing Republicans.
Now not all earmarks should be inherently damaging or counterproductive to the health and prosperity of good governance and strong Democracy. They can lend vital funding and services to areas and work projects that otherwise might get overlooked or severely lack resources. The problem starts when you enter George W. Bush and his egregious fiscal irresponsibility and indifference to working Americans.
That means projects will go ahead in many instances, but it will be up to Bush administration officials, spread throughout dozens of federal agencies, to determine who gets the money. Instead of looking to bills passed by Congress — or rosters of projects listed in accompanying reports — agency chiefs will have enormous discretion to award projects.
In response, lawmakers are likely to pick up the phone and write letters as they lobby agency officials to go ahead with their earmarks.
"We're going to continue to make the strongest case we can to whomever we need to fund projects we believe have a broad, positive impact on the district and are supported by the communities in which they exist," said Betsy Hawkings, chief of staff to Rep. Christopher Shays (news, bio, voting record), R-Conn.
"Even if things aren't always earmarked in report language or in a bill, sometimes there's conversations that occur between members ... and agencies," said Christin Baker, spokeswoman for the White House budget office.
Some Democrats are worried that Bush officials will use their power to help their GOP friends.
Again the problem isn't with the concept of earmarking itself, but with the Administration calling the shots. We have seen how this government allocates, spends, and in turn withdraws money. And the consequences are always the same. Help the rich, screw the working class and the poor. To fully illustrate this:
In going forward, Bush officials are likely to fund projects included in its February budget or approved in other bills such as the defense authorization measure.
That would mean construction of federal courthouses and other federal buildings is likely to go forward, as is new housing and other construction on military bases. But earmarks for projects such as grants for after-school programs and local hospitals are more likely to get shelved.
And there you have it, the Bush bottom line right there.
Some lawmakers are worried that in reducing the number of earmarks, a disproportionate share would go to powerful members of the Appropriations committees and to senior lawmakers, with far fewer given to the rank and file. A chief reason for the massive growth in earmarks is that GOP leaders spread them around to everyone who asked for them.
"People bemoan the 'explosion' of earmarks but what we did was we democratized it," said Rep. James Walsh (news, bio, voting record), R-N.Y., a subcommittee chairman — or "cardinal"_ on the Appropriations Committee. "We took what was the purview of a few so-called cardinals ... and we gave members all across the country the opportunity to give us their priorities."
(all emphasis mine)
Again, in theory this could be a very good thing. But we must remember what these 'Republican' priorities are. We don't need 535 special interest groups in Washington, one for each Congressman. We need a grand vision for progress and change in this country which involves bringing everyone up from the bottom, and not just inflating the top. If there was responsibility on Capitol Hill, I would be more inclined to believe that earmarks would be a valuable idea. With the imminent arrival of the 110th, Democratic Congress, there is a lot of hope for this responsibility to be restored. But I cannot trust the discretion of the Bush Administration and Republican lawmakers to do what is right for the most people in this country. We cannot only focus on the external actions of Congress, we must also pressure lawmakers on their internal practices, such as how bills are written and carried out. We must keep a vigilant eye and ensure transparency in the legislative branch, which is mandatory in keeping our representatives and senators as servants of the public.