To-may-to, to-mah-to, and other earmark observations—Part 2
By Jennifer J. Foster
Published: March 11, 2009
(See Part 1 of this post here.)
Happy earmark recipients this year include members of the president’s inner circle! And a bunch of red states!! An earmark in every pot!!
And this is why Obama’s earmark reform promises aren’t likely to face a friendlier reception in Congress next year, either. Democratic congressional leaders have already drawn a line in the sand with Obama and made clear their displeasure with what they see as his meddling in their department.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) was blunt:
Asked about White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs’ statement Monday that the Obama administration was formulating guidelines for earmark reform, Hoyer said flatly, “I don’t think the White House has the ability to tell us what to do.“
He paused deliberately and quipped to reporters in the room, “I hope you all got that down.“
Likewise, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), House Approps Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) and the aforementioned Inouye floated some new terminology in the earmark wars: They aren’t earmarks, Inouye said. They are “congressional initiatives.“ And don’t think of them as political favors inserted into bills by powerful politicians who seek to reward their supporters. Reid says he and his fellow politicians are saving us from having “nameless, faceless bureaucrats” making decisions about the federal budget.
Yeah, “White House and anonymous bureaucrats,“ Obey chimed in.
And lest you think this is a partisan issue, you should know that our contentious Congress has found consensus and bipartisanship on this issue! Yes, Republicans and Democrats alike—with few exceptions in the Senate, at least—think earmarks are GRRRREAT!!
Alabama’s own U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby lays claim to the second-most earmarks in the omnibus bill: 64 earmarks worth $114 million.
“I wouldn’t want to be associated with an earmark on an appropriation that didn’t have a lot of merit to it,“ he said, adding that the system has been abused by some lawmakers. “What we need to do is vet it more and more. I wouldn’t want to give up our right to appropriate money,“ he said. “Otherwise, we cede it to the president, whoever that is. ... But on the other hand, any earmark you have, it ought to have merit, or we shouldn’t do it.“
Shelby’s earmarks span the gamut, from $800,000 for oyster rehabilitation at the University of South Alabama, to $380,000 to the city of Tarrant, Ala., for streetscaping and walkways.
OK, folks, here’s the deal. You send your federal representatives to Washington, you expect them to bring back your share of the tax money you send there. No one wants to be a “donor state.“
I live in Auburn, home to Auburn University, which is also the largest employer in the area. Without significant federal funds, Auburn University would not be the economic engine to this community that it is.
Auburn’s been on the receiving end of a lot of Shelby’s earmarking efforts, and that’s been a good thing for his constituents. He’s brought home the bacon throughout this state. He mentioned in his town hall meeting here a couple of weeks ago that he has returned several hundred million dollars to this state during his time in Washington, and he made clear his intention to do more.
And you’ve heard the old phrase: It’s only pork if someone else gets it.
Congress has a point about their appropriations responsibilities. But the president has a point that they’ve abused those responsibilities.
I’d like us to start assessing appropriations based on their merit and whether the federal government should even be involved in providing funds for them. For example, folks all over the country benefit from the research that’s done at Auburn—and other institutions of higher learning that have received earmarks. But how many Americans will benefit from the construction of the 69th Street Terminal Parking Facility in Upper Darby, Pa.?
This is what I’m talking about. Local things of local interest and benefit should be the responsibility of local governments. Ditto for state projects. The federal government should stick to meeting its obligations to all citizens under the Constitution.
Yes, that will probably have tax implications in individual states. But let’s face it: Won’t that force us to make some decisions about whether we really need these things from the government?
And can you imagine what that would do for the national debt?
We’ll see if President Obama, in his earmark reforms next year (or whenever), will give us an opportunity to find out.
See also:
Earmarks by senator: Find out who the Grand Champion Porker is, and whether either of your senators is bringin’ home the bacon.
Earmarks by state: Find out which states got the most—and fewest—earmarks, and how much those states will receive.
Twitter updates from Jennifer at 
