Congressional Earmarks

There are two routes for Congress to authorize an expenditure. One is the authorization process, which provides money to the Executive Branch in general categories, typically the Cabinet departments. The Executive then decides how projects should be conceived and implemented. The other route is with earmarks, where Congress specifies many of the details of a specific project. I supported the definitions of the two routes with references. Earmarks have traditionally had a number of defects. Congress would append them anonymously in secrecy, they were not vetted before the public, and sometimes the contractor to perform the work was also specified in the legislation. Those defects were corrected by bipartisan reform legislation enacted in March of this year. That leaves the question of whether Congress should ever use the earmark method to appropriate funds for a specific project, or whether the Executive Branch should always be left with full discretion as to how the money for a general purpose is parceled out in specific projects. If I understand Con correctly, and I'm not sure that I do, the earmark method should never be used, because the authorization process is likely to result in better vetting and better allocation of funds. The Stimulus Bill provides a decisive counterexample to the superiority of the authorization process. the Stimulus Bill went through the authorization process; hearings were held and no specific projects were required. In ended up with the funding of ridiculous unvetted pork barrel projects like the $3.5 million tunnel for turtles to cross a road. Counties that supported Obama get twice the money, per capita, than counties that supported McCain. All it accomplished was moving Congressional malfeasance to Executive malfeasance. Con argues that since the recent earmark reforms haven't been tested, they may turn out to be as ineffective as the authorization process is now. Con says, "These ethics reform bills you are talking about mean practically nothing. You think we can trust Congress to police itself? No matter what the new rules are, the lobbyists and the congressmen will always find a way to get around them ..." If what Con argues is true, then the authorization process has no advantage, because an unstoppably corrupt government would not obey authorization process constraints and more than earmark constraints. I don't believe that. I don't think we are relying upon Congress to police itself. If one Party violates the written rules, then the other Party will use it as a campaign issue. The voters ultimately do the policing. (4.1, 4.2) Con brought up another issue, claiming that earmarks are directed at local spending that is unrelated to federal issues. Con might have pointed to West Virginia where every manmade object over three feet in diameter has Senator Harry Byrd's name on it, in honor of his bring home the pork. I agree with Con that money from the general tax base ought not to be used to fund purely local projects. However, the Stimulus Bill proved that such funding can be accomplished through the authorization process. Moreover, no simple rule will end that abuse. Consider, "The turtle tunnel is needed as part of the national effort to protect wildlife." Every road, school, park, and museum can be attributed to important national priorities on transportation, education, wildlife, and culture. The problem can only be solved by electing legislators with a different attitude. Banning earmarks would accomplish nothing. I am in sympathy with Con's general critique of corrupt pork barrel projects, but he errs in supposing that they are tied to earmarks. The Stimulus Bill is ten times the size of the sum of all the earmarks, and more wasteful and corrupt. Reforming the earmark process is a good thing, and that has happened, but banishing earmarks would move power from Congress to the Executive Branch. That's the wrong direction for power to flow. We need to maintain checks and balances, and Congress should not cede the power of the purse. The reformed earmark process should be maintained. It's better than transferring more power to the Executive. That's the Pro side of this debate.