EARMARK  REFORM

Senator Jim DeMint is trying to change the secret “Earmark” society paradigm in Washington and taking a lot of heat in doing so. The new Ethics Bill was supposed to make “Earmarks” identifiable to the requester, the spending project, and the amount.

According to Congresspedia, "Earmarking" is the term used to refer to a provision in legislation that directs funds to be spent on specific projects. Typically, legislators seek to insert earmarks which direct a specified amount of money to a particular organization or project in his/her home state or district. This differs from the appropriation of money to a particular government agency, for in these cases the appropriate executive department can exercise discretion as to where and how the funds are spent. The use of earmarks in

the U.S. Congress has expanded significantly over the past thirty years, and is presently the focus of much controversy.

Again According to Congresspedia, The idea of directing federal money to specific local projects originally came from Rep. John Calhoun (D-S.C.) when he proposed the Bonus Bill of 1817 to construct highways linking the East and South of the United States to its Western frontier. At the time, these projects were referred to as "internal improvements." Calhoun wanted to use the earnings bonus from the Second Bank of the United States specifically for this program, arguing that the General Welfare and Post Roads clauses of the US Constitution called for it. President James Monroe vetoed the bill as unconstitutional. He explained his reasoning in the following message:

Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms 'common defense and general welfare' embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust.

The Earmark process today is, at least on paper, earmarks are intended to go through a public process. Lawmakers recognize needs which exist in their respective states or districts, and submit a written request to the appropriate congressional subcommittee asking for the panel’s support. In reality, however, earmarks are often not judged on their merit. Rather, earmarks are typically handed out as favors in exchange for votes on key pieces of legislation by party leaders and appropriations chairmen.

This is where I feel we need a total reform when considering these Earmarks.  Logically the States should have access to federal money after all they are the ones giving up a portion of their tax dollars to the Federal Government.  Most of these Earmarks are not even generated by requirements from the districts or States but rather from the Congressional Elected officials perceived needs usually based on the money they would receive from private individuals or special interest groups, some with the offer of more jobs, too enhance their reelection coffers, if they get the money to do their projects.      

The attempt by Rep. John Calhoun (D-S.C.) to get the Bonus Bill passed in 1817 was in fact a good start.  However, Calhoun’s bill should not have been used for building an “Interstate Highway System” it should have been part of a federal “Transportation Appropriations Bill” instead.

We must come up with a way of using the Federal Budget to allocate money for use by the States so that they are made accountable to the voters and not stuck into Bills with no visibility and no accountability as they are today.  I believe requirements for use of funds should be submitted, yearly, by the Governor of each State, after the State Legislator approvable, to a “Congressional Committee” with oversight. This would put the State Government in charge and keep the lobbyists and other special interest groups from setting the States priorities. The Federal budget should have set up 50 accounts, or one for each State.  Requests for each project must be defined and the State elected Federal Congressional person responsible must be named. The requests should then be submitted to the President prior to the start of the budgeting process.  The President should do his magic in order to keep spending within his limits and place the appropriation in the State’s account within the budget similar to the appropriation of money to a particular government agency.

When the Budget is submitted to Congress the appropriation should be validated as part of the normal budget process.  This would not only provide transparency for the voters as well the President but it would eliminate “Earmarks” from the Bill construction and conference phases all together along with the need for a line item veto since the appropriation was approved prior to the budget process.  

Compare this to the process today, again as per Congresspedia:

On paper, earmarks are intended to go through a public process. Lawmakers recognize needs which exist in their respective states or districts, and submit a written request to the appropriate congressional subcommittee asking for the panel’s support. In reality, however, earmarks are often not judged on their merit. Rather, earmarks are typically handed out as favors in exchange for votes on key pieces of legislation by party leaders and appropriations chairmen.

In addition, earmarks are rarely considered by the entire U.S. House of Representatives or U.S. Senate during the construction of a bill. Rather, they are often added during the conference phase, which is when House and Senate leaders meet to iron-out the differences in their respective pieces of legislation on a particular issue. Following the conference, both houses must approve the legislation again, but if a member wishes to oppose a particular earmark, he/she must vote against the entire bill in order to do so. Given that most earmarks are inserted into massive pieces of legislation which fund the federal government, members of Congress are often reluctant to oppose them simply over an earmark. In addition, through the process of logrolling, members often agree to support a bill with another’s earmark in exchange for the same treatment. The result is bills with hundreds, if not thousands, of specifically-directed funding projects. Thomas A. Schatz, president of Citizens Against Government Waste, said that 98 percent of earmarks to appropriations bills in 2005 were added in the conference phase.

When passed legislation reaches the president’s desk, a similar problem arises. Not wishing to stall the budgetary process or risk a public relations backlash for rejecting a bill for transportation or defense appropriations, presidents are often forced to sign bills loaded with earmarks.

Evidently, keeping the taxpayers in the dark about who, what, and how much, is the right thing to do. The overwhelming margins of approval in both the Senate (83-14) and House (411-8) proved that to be true.  The Senate voted not to debate the ‘Earmark” transparency statement, which DeMint along with 13 other Senators introduced, thereby keeping it out of the new Ethics Bill. These Senators put up a good fight standing up for our rights but things got real heated and they were publicly reprimanded by Senators Lott and Reid.

A measure of how entrenched this activity is in the fabric of the two parties is the directive issued by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) on February 22^nd 2007 that it "will no longer identify earmarks for individual programs, activities, entities, or individuals" which supplied the data for the Senators.

Since all of South Carolina House Representatives voted to pass this bill without the Transparency statement I am wondering what they have to hide.

Only the voters can help change this paradigm by voting out the elected officials who have been in office too long.

Senator Jim De Mint (R-S.C.) is now in the process of getting 100,000 signatures, nation wide, on a petition supporting Earmark reform. He needs you to join 100,000 Strong for Earmark Reform today by visiting www.jimdemint.com.