« You’ll take this money from my cold dead hands | Main | The Daily Memo - 1/9/07 »
The Other White Meat
Last week the House passed a much-needed ethics requirement regarding earmarking, which is where these little spending provisions (known as pork) are tacked onto unrelated bills. This is generally done with very little fanfare, and it’s the way legislators funnel some federal funds to local projects, businesses, etc. back home. But it’s shocking how much this practice is used - “[t]he number of earmarks exploded in the last decade from 1,439 in 1995 to 15,268 last year, according to a Senate estimate.”
Under the new House regulation, there’s no stop to the pork, but representatives have to publicly disclose any earmarking and certify that they don’t have a personal financial stake in the issue. The Senate is set to consider a similar ethics measure this week, which would also require more open identification of when earmarking takes place. For once, Bush is actually on the right side of this issue:
White House Deputy Press Secretary Tony Fratto welcomed the House action but said it fell short of the president’s goal of cutting in half the number and cost of earmarks. “To make them transparent is important and should have a chilling effect on new earmarks,” he said, “but reducing the overall number of earmarks should be a goal as well.”
Absolutely right - there’s way too much porking going on, and they really need to put the kibosh on this shit. What’s the problem with it all, you ask?
The often secret nature of the process contributed to its explosive increase in recent years and led to scandals such as the one that ensnared former Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R-Rancho Santa Fe), who went to jail for accepting bribes from lobbyists seeking earmarks.
…
The number of earmarks exploded in the last decade from 1,439 in 1995 to 15,268 last year, according to a Senate estimate. They have been blamed for spawning a troubling culture on Capitol Hill that saw a dramatic rise in the number of lobbyists and some notorious corruption scandals.
Earmarks gained wider notoriety after the $223-million “bridge to nowhere” — connecting Ketchikan, Alaska, to an island with an airport and about 50 inhabitants — was slipped into the 2005 highway bill.
…
The Los Angeles Times reported recently that the new Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, earmarked funds for a bridge across the Colorado River that could affect the value of undeveloped land Reid owns in the vicinity. The Nevada Democrat has denied any wrongdoing.
The disclosure was one of many in recent months suggesting that lawmakers, including former House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), may have profited from their own earmarks. He denied any connection between his earmark for highway construction and the rise in the value of property he owned nearby.
In some other cases, the spending provisions look like rewards for campaign contributors and other supporters. Earmarks played a role in the scandal around lobbyist Jack Abramoff and Cunningham’s bribery conviction. They also led to a federal inquiry involving Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Redlands), the former chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. The congressman has denied any wrongdoing.
The greatest power to earmark lies in the hands of appropriations committee members. Reid and Pelosi are both appropriations veterans and rose in power partly because of their ability to use earmarks as carrots or sticks with junior members of Congress. In addition, it helped them and other congressional leaders lure campaign contributions, which they then distributed to colleagues.
It’s just a shady, scummy practice that wastes tax dollars, calls legislative ethics and motives into question, and further damages the already sterling reputation the boys down in Washington have. This House ethics requirement is definitely a step in the right direction, but as Bush’s lackey says, they need to go further, and figure out a way to slow this shit down (since there’s no way we’re ever going to see the practice killed entirely, unfortunately).
