Congressional Earmarks

1. Definition and Statement of the Resolution Pro did not provide either a definition of earmarks or a resolution to a debate. The definition of earmarks is: "In United States politics an earmark is a congressional provision that directs approved funds to be spent on specific projects or that directs specific exemptions from taxes or mandated fees. Earmarks do not create new government spending, but allocate existing spending for specific purposes." http://en.wikipedia.org...(politics) I then suppose the debate resolution to be: "Congress should not enact earmarks." The alternative to earmarks is general appropriations in which the specific projects are unspecified. For example, under the resolution, it would be permissible to appropriate money to NASA, but not permissible to appropriate money for the specific project of building a space station on the moon. NASA must be left with the discretion as to which projects are funded. 2. Earmarks vs. the Authorization Process The authorization process is the method by which money is appropriated to government agencies. The process is authorization process is described in lugar.senate.gov/indianaspending/pdf/Overview.pdf. Pro asserts that the problem with earmarks is that they escape the cost benefit analysis of the authorization process. However, there is no cost-benefit analysis in the authorization process. Congress determines by its own means what levels of spending it thinks are appropriate for the various departments. The Secretaries outline to Congress how they propose to spend the money and attempt to justify why they need more money, but there is nothing like a formal cost-benefit analysis. Under the resolution, a generic "stimulus plan" is acceptable. It authorized $700 billion for the Executive Branch to do good things. Later, the executive branch decides that, for example, $3.4 million ought to go building a tunnel for turtles to cross under a road. http://www.wcjb.com... The executive has also decided that twice as much should go to Obama supporters: "In 2008, 872 counties supported Obama during the election. Each received roughly $69 in stimulus per person. Of the 2,234 counties that voted for John McCain, the average was $34." (Note that is per capita.) I think it would be much better if the list of projects were specified and put to Congress for a vote. Then every Congressman would have to defend exactly how the money was spent. Prior to Hurricane Katrina, a substantial amount of money was appropriated to Louisiana for improvements to their coast and waterways, with no specification of specific projects. Louisiana decided to spend too much money on port projects and too little on flood control. Not earmarking it was a mistake. My point is that eliminating earmarks does not eliminate boondoggle projects, in fact it would facilitate the corrupt practices of wasting money to reward political friends and punish political enemies. It transfers that power from the legislative to the executive branch, which further isolates it from scrutiny. 3. Earmark Process Reform The problem has been not that earmarks exist. It has been the corrupt process by which they are enacted. Earmarks were anonymously attached to unrelated legislation so that their sponsor could not easily be identified and held accountable. The were added at the last minute in committee and not subjected to review by the executive branch, hearings, or public comment. Some bipartisan reforms have been recently enacted that improves the process. http://appropriations.house.gov... The revised process requires executive branch review and mandates competitive bidding for the projects. Projects proposed by members must be posted on their websites, sponsorship must be disclosed, and there is a provision for early public scrutiny. There is cap of 1% of discretionary funds that can be spent of earmarks. It remains to be seen whether or not these reforms will be sufficient. They are definitely headed in the right direction. If further reforms are needed, they should be enacted, rather than eliminating the authorization of specific projects. The Constitution gives the power of the purse to Congress. They should not cede more of that power to the executive branch. 4. Pro's Contentions 4.1 Pro makes two arguments for a ban on earmarks. One is that earmarks are not an effective way of creating jobs. I agree, but that applies equally as well to executive branch spending on boondoggle projects. The $3.4 million spent for the turtle tunnel in the non-earmarked stimulus bill is not going to create any more jobs or any fewer jobs that if the turtle tunnel were built under an earmark. Under the enacted earmark reforms, at least the public would have had a chance to comment before the money was spent. 4.2 Pro further argues that the Constitution does not allow spending for job creation. That too is irrelevant. If it is unconstitutional, then the it is just as unconstitutional if the money is appropriated indirectly by agency as if it is appropriated directly for projects. therefore, Pro has not established a valid reason for banning earmarks as a means of appropriation. The resolution is negated.