Comment & Debate
“Earmark Games”. LA Times (Editorial). March 10, 2009 – Earmarks, which are inserted into spending bills without the usual committee review, don’t always amount to wasteful pork. It’s not hard to decide whether a bridge to nowhere is a worthwhile project, but such clear examples of abuse get a great deal of attention because they’re relatively rare. It’s much harder to determine whether an educational program in Missouri or a museum expansion in Los Angeles is really something taxpayers should be funding. That’s why blanket moratoriums aren’t necessarily the best approach. It’s better to open the books to scrutiny and let the public decide whether an individual earmark is wasteful or unnecessary.
Howard Marlowe. “In Defense of Earmarks”. The Hill. February 6, 2008 – Earmarks are not evil if their sponsors and purposes are made public and if appropriations committee aides are given the time and resources to vet each one thoroughly. Those members of Congress who abhor earmarks should propose legislative changes that take Congress back to the pre-Budget Act days of the Nixon era, when the president controlled the budget. The reforms enacted last year need to be given a chance to work before anyone considers changing them.
John Feehery. “Reform, don’t ban, earmarks”. Politico. March 14, 2009 – Undoubtedly, Congress has abused their power to spend the people’s money, and unfortunately, corruption has become all too commonplace.
But the reaction to this corruption should not be the wholesale abdication of power to an all-powerful executive.
Rather, Congress should reform its spending ways to rebuild the taxpayer’s trust in the process.
First, it should insist on transparency. Last-minute deals to add special little projects, all to buy votes, should be prohibited.
Second, it should insist that the committee of jurisdiction authorize all appropriated projects. The authorization process should be revitalized to give each and every spending request the scrutiny it deserves.
Third, no member should be given the power to be able to both authorize and appropriate spending projects. The temptation is simply too great when members have that much power to spend taxpayers dollars.
Fourth, the Congress should use an outside accrediting agency (perhaps GAO or the CBO) to give a seal of approval that the spending requests are in the national interest, and not just in the parochial or private interest of the requesting member.