Bringing Back Earmarks
There seems to be a quiet debate going on within Congress over the possibility of bringing back the practice of earmarks. Unusually, the debate doesn't seem to break down on strictly partisan lines (the way most issues do, these days). But it does raise a valid question: should some limited form of earmarks be allowed to return to the budgeting process? Would it be a good thing or a bad thing, overall?
The issue was largely a symbolic one, at heart. Earmarks never made up that much of the budget -- a few percentage points at best (when they were banned, the most recent figure was that all earmarks accounted for only two percent of the federal budget). Banning them didn't do much to "rein in out-of-control spending" (the slogan that was used to get rid of them), in other words. But, symbolically, it was a potent issue for the incoming Tea Party freshmen after the 2010 election.
I wrote about the subject in great length back then, without coming to many firm conclusions. I still don't have much in the way of a solid basis, but my suspicion is that getting rid of earmarks has made the entire budget process harder and has exacerbated the congressional gridlock. Again, that's just my gut feeling -- even if earmarks were still around, Congress may still have locked up tight on the budget, especially with all those fervent Tea Partiers in the House.
Defending earmarks is hard to do, which is one reason why they were banned back then, even though the Republican leadership in Congress was not in favor of getting rid of the practice. A vote to keep earmarks was seen (by the Tea Party, especially) as a vote to continue Washington's spending spree. Earmarks were seen in a bad light, as "backroom deals" that were one short step from outright bribery.
Perhaps this impression is true, but perhaps a few backroom deals would have greased the skids in Congress enough to pass a few necessary bills. Even if you call earmarks outright bribes (using taxpayer dollars, no less), maybe a little bribery isn't such a bad thing.
Earmarks, in case anyone is unaware, are specific carve-outs in the budget. Instead of passing $100 billion for an executive department's budget, a few million here and there would be marked off for very specific projects in the home districts of certain congressmen. This was known as "bringing home the bacon" among the political chattering class. House members got sent to Washington to protect the interests of their district, and they'd come through with some highway funds or money to build some other project. Was some of this money wasted? Sure. Building (just to make one up) a museum for exotic fungi in Lower Foontville isn't exactly the most pressing federal business of the day. But somebody's got to build the Toadstool Museum, which means local jobs in construction. And then a few jobs maintaining and staffing the museum, for the long term.
Congressmen outraged over bloated federal budgets used to routinely point out how silly some of these projects were. Again, perhaps rightly. But if the new museum boosted Lower Foontville's economy a bit (and the entire Foont County economy to boot), then the people affected would remember who secured the money come election time. Without earmarks, it is a lot tougher for any politician to point to a project and say "I made that happen."
Federal budgetary bribery might be make-work on a certain level, but it did provide micro-boosts to local economies at the same time. But that isn't even the biggest argument for bringing back earmarks. Because the bribery money was a lever. It was used to secure votes for larger bills. Again, be as cynical as you like over paying tax money for a congressman's vote, but at least the money isn't given over to his re-election campaign (as with special interest and lobbyist money -- a different sort of bribery). Instead, it is supposed to benefit his or her constituents in some tangible way.
Part of the reason the Tea Partiers were so against earmarks were the famously-named ones that were used to secure enough votes for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, such as the "Cornhusker Kickback." Symbolically, the practice stood for everything that the Tea Party was against, which is why it was such a big deal for them.
But politically, earmarks were abused by all, Democrats and Republicans. In fact, the practice didn't get completely out of control until the Republicans took Congress over in the 1990s and during President George W. Bush's term. Earmarks went from numbering in the hundreds (in the early 90s) to numbering in the tens of thousands each year. Breaking this down, with 535 members of Congress, this equates to over twenty earmarks per congressman. That is -- obviously -- too many. If earmarks do return, hopefully they will be much more limited in use.
But putting limits on their use wouldn't be that hard to do. Perhaps set aside something like one percent of the budget to be used on earmarks. Limit them to a few per district, and a few per state (for senators). One penny out of every federal dollar isn't all that much, really, to allow some selective bribery.
The reason earmarks could be a beneficial thing is that they can be used to convince wavering congressmen to support a much bigger budget deal. They can be successfully used to peel off a few votes from the partisan divide -- that was their traditional use, in fact. The threat of having a handful of members be bribed into supporting the other party's bill served as a check on the leadership of both parties to strike budgetary deals.
Ever since the Tea Party got rid of earmarks, such deals have been almost non-existent, and excruciatingly painful to reach for all concerned (to say nothing of the American public). Again, I cannot say whether this is coincidence or causality. To put it another way, even with earmarks, we still could have had all the "fiscal cliffs" and government shutdowns over the past few years.
But perhaps not. Earmarks were banned when the budget was in crisis state. We have now pulled back from that brink. The economy is slowly recovering and the deficits have fallen dramatically. Perhaps it is time to reconsider the beneficial aspects of a few choice earmarks. Put sensible limits on both the total number of earmarks and the total amount that can be earmarked, and the process could smooth out some bumps in the budgetary road. Make it so the whole process can't spin out of control the way it did before, in other words.
Allowing a little federal money to flow here and there to pet projects isn't the ideal way for a government to operate, perhaps. But neither is the way it has operated for the past few years, either. Some sort of happy medium might be able to be achieved. And all the tourists driving through Foont County will be able to spend a few hours marveling at the Toadstool Museum, and spending some money afterwards in local businesses. Which, if you ask the merchants on Main Street, might not be all that bad an idea after all.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
I have also heard the occasional quiet mention of the word earmark lately, slipped into some Congressperson's comment re a budget or campaign issue. I smile and put it down to it being an election year.
However, after reading your blog, I'm in two minds about earmarks. To summarize: I'm against influence but for the effect.
I'll take the second one first. The positive economic effect on a district is surely a good thing. (I particularly like your Lower Foontville example and wonder if the Toadstool Museum is mushroom-shaped? I think it should be.)
Now for the first, influence, which is multi-layered.
Influence on voters: I'm enjoying the earmarks-empty incumbents' problems with justifying what I have done for you to the satisfaction of their constituents. With no earmarks to offer them, they are having to rely on issues and justify their voting records. It goes a long way to leveling the playing field for their challengers, who have no earmarks to boast about, and I'm all for that.
Incumbents shouldn't be given an easy time of it, especially those who have been pretty useless on the whole (and there's too many of them). In the past, they've used an earmark to promote themselves and that one local issue has been a strong attraction for voters, in spite of there being a challenger who could and would do a much better job. I think some of the close races we're seeing may be a strong indication of the effect no earmarks is having on voters; they are being forced to look at a much broader array of their incumbent's claims.
One particular instance comes to mind: McConnell telling constituents that creating local jobs, "is not my job". It used to be when earmarks abounded, and no doubt constituents are used to this largesse bestowed on them by their representatives, but no more. Given how few people take an active interest in politics, I'm wondering how many actually realize that earmarks have been banned. They may still be expecting them, especially from those who are Congressional leaders, and be disappointed. Who can tell? No-one has polled them on this issue as far as I know.
Influencing a member's vote: I can see your argument for this, particularly with reference to the current Congressional logjam, but it just doesn't sit well with me. On the one hand, I think it really wouldn't have had much effect on votes in the 113th session because of the avowed opposition to all things Obama from the Republican Party. I think they would have stuck to their extreme resentment come what may. Certainly no attempted concessions on behalf of the President has moved them in any way. If anything it has been a case of "give them and inch and they'll take a mile" as we saw all too clearly at work with the 16-day government shutdown.
On the other hand, I just don't like the idea of trading earmarks for votes. I'm probably being very naive and idealistic but to me there's something demeaning about it for those on both sides of the bargain. Members should be thinking about what is best for their constituents and when they go against that (as in failing to extend unemployment benefits), they should have to face those people and try to justify themselves. There shouldn't be any "outs" to change their votes or, worse, to sweeten/obscure their failures when it comes to the effects their votes have on constituents.
Congressional members should live and die politically by their own actions/inactions. Let the power reside with the electorate to decide and don't muddy the waters with earmarks (they're muddied enough with other kinds of bribes). If, as polling has shown for months now, the electorate really deplores the performance of Congress, then let them show that at the ballot box, if they will.
So, in order to resolve my conflict with this issue, how does one eliminate the influence while keeping the effect? I'd like to propose Presidential discretionary spending for every electorate. I see it working thus: without any input whatsoever from House Reps and Senators, interest groups from every electorate apply for funding for their particular project and one is chosen by the President (with assistance perhaps of an independent panel and the CBO), from each electoral district. This would maintain, even increase, the positive effects, especially as it is likely to cut out the more ludicrous ideas for earmarks that have been seen in the past. It also has a better chance of bypassing lobbyists (they too would be strictly prohibited from the process of application and selection).
Congress would hate it but I like it!
I also have mixed feelings about earmarks. Some of them have benefited our area in central Pennsylvania, which is the kind of area that gets short-changed by planners without a local link (rural, mountainous, bad winter weather -- which may be why PA has the highest percentage of bridges that need fixed in the country!) But the aura of 'bribery' makes them unpleasant. As far as Mopshell's idea, that doesn't make it nonpolitical, just gives the president a HUGE boost (especially a first term incumbent running for re-election). I would favor some limits, such as Chris describes, with one addition: some independent evaluation (minimally the CBO, ideally an additional one as well) has to agree that it is a worthwhile project. It may be a good thing to have a Toadstool Museum, in other words, but we don't need another one somewhere if the country already has five.
@DisabledDoc
Oh I know you're right that my idea would give a president in their first term a huge boost and that wouldn't always be a good thing. I was thinking that we're likely to have Democratic presidents for the next few cycles so I was being very partisan about it!
You are right though that it should be nonpartisan - a panel of independent experts perhaps. I'm thinking along the lines of a broad range of experts initially: engineers, economists, zoologists, botanists, architects (I want that mushroom-shaped Toadstool Museum to look good!), social work, medical, legal, education, tourism etc. Each of them could make recommendations on applications in their field before a core group meet to determine final decisions.
It would be a unique way of boosting local economies (which can only do the whole country some good) as well as communicating to all Americans that they matter and the government is there to help them at a local level as well.
Of course, whoever the president is at the time, they will find some way of taking credit for it, no matter how independent the base and core panels are!
Sorry this is just a little thoughtlet, time is short....ARGGH.
@Mopshell
Like your concept, unless I am mistaken you are lifting it from Participatory budgeting from brazil, places in the commonwealth and a few spots here. We have it in our town and it was born out of the necessity that our local politicians are bought and sold like the big boys in dysfunction junction. Evidently they forgot to take care of the ones who brought them and took care of the ones who bought them, as result over 80 percent of our general budget goes to pay for police and fire salaries with no interest being shown to back down anytime soon to improve and repair infrastructure. so we passed a bond and are slowly improving our city as determined by the electorate.
The only pitfall to the way our money gets allocated is that the city council can vote to defund the money pool (which they are trying to do) even though it is supposed to be a dedicated pool, unfortunately there is a loop hole that is there to prevent us going back into bankruptcy and our police unions who spent LOTS are hungry for their pay raise (a phony emergent need has been declared). So we shall see how it pays out, lawsuits are already being mentioned to protect what the electorate has declared.
For those who are interested here is a brief link to PB info:
http://www.participatorybudgeting.org/
@goode trickle
I've never heard of participatory budgeting before so I shall be very interested in reading your link. Thank you very much for that.