Roundtable Discussion on Earmark Spending

This article is from the February 2008 Unto the Breach Newsletter

With low approval ratings in the White House and historically low ratings in Congress, America is fed up with the status quo in Washington. One of the things turning the public against the politicians is the prolific use of earmark spending. Bills are being loaded down with billions of dollars of taxpayer money to fund projects to the benefit our congressmen and women. There is little to no accountability or transparency to this “pork barrel” spending. Although our federal deficit is growing out of control, Congress seems fit to insert tens of billions of dollars of earmarks into legislation each year. Unto the Breach has lined up a panel to discuss earmark spending.

Chris Carter (Crush) is a conservative internet radio host, blogger, and the editor of the Unto the Breach Newsletter.

Barry Davidson is a writer of fiction who expanded his writing styles to include political and satire writing. He has several short stories and poems published, and is currently working on a book of poetry for regular people as well as pursuing a career in politics.

Mike Duminiak is a Conservative Constitutionalist who believes that local and State governments which are closer to the people can better meet their needs and remain under their control as opposed to the distant and insulated national government controlled by lobbyists and special interest groups.

DAVIDSON: While Americans are fed up with the status quo in Washington, I don’t feel that it’s entirely because of earmark spending. Most Americans don’t pay enough attention, and before the 110th Congress earmarks were hidden in the bills anyway. It would be hard for anyone to put their finger on any one reason the public is so disappointed in their government. I think it’s a mixture of issues, with trust being at the top of everyone’s list. Americans just don’t trust their elected representatives anymore. Well, they trust them far less than they did in previous decades.

Democrats won back the majority in both houses of Congress, but one of their promises was to end earmark or pork spending. While 2007 did see fewer earmark than in any Congress since the 106th, Americans didn’t see any kind of gain from the 12 to 15 billion saved from the more than 7000 earmarks which were eliminated by H.J. Resolution 20. Instead the Democrat controlled congress decided it would spend that “savings” elsewhere.

Look at the history. The 109th Congress was from January 3, 2005 through January 3, 2007. During that time 23,960 confirmed earmarks were passed with a cost of 56.3 billion to American taxpayers. The 110th Congress, which has been in office for a little over a year has passed 2,658 confirmed earmarks at a cost of 13.2 billion. The numbers are lower, but we still have two years to go for this Congress. Even with this lower amount, Alaska and Hawaii has still managed to increase funding for themselves by 127% over 2006.

You’re probably wondering why I popped those numbers out there. Well, I wanted everyone to know what we’re up against. Especially since the FY 2008 budget is still being debated. Congress is opting for higher appropriations that even President Bush asked for in his version. What does this mean for Americans? We may be seeing fewer earmarks for the time being, but taxpayers will still be shelling out more money.

In other words, while this issue is a hot one, we need to be forcing other changes on our “leaders” at the same time. As we know from experience, if Congress can’t get money from us one way, they’ll certainly find another way.

DUMINIAK: Look, as much as I hate earmark spending, the public is only against it when it involves spending in someone else’s district or State.  People look to the government to “create jobs” or “solve problems” and expect their elected officials to be able to meddle in the economy and social fabric of the country on their behalf.  They don’t mind at all when a hundred million dollars is dumped into some make work project in their own backyard.  The biggest obstacle to earmark reform is that politicians get elected by “bring home the bacon” and as much as people whine in general about earmarks – they still elect the guy who brought the most earmark money home.

CRUSH: The Democrats swept back into power following the 2006 elections by running on the corruption and spending of the Republicans. Before becoming Speaker, Nancy Pelosi told the Wall Street Journal that “Personally, myself, I’d get rid of all of them. None of them is worth the skepticism, the cynicism the public has… and the fiscal irresponsibility of it.” Well, Pelosi “drained the swamp” when the Democrats took over, but instead of draining the corruption and restoring transparency and accountability, she merely drained the Republicans and restored the Democrats.

Earmarks were at a peak with the 109th Congress in 2005 with 13,492, costing taxpayers $18,944,327,000. But last year’s spending bills contained 11,331 earmarks totaling about $20 billion. And that is after leaders in Congress and President Bush agreed to cut earmarks in half from their previous levels. If the Democrats were serious about cutting earmarks, they would have not increased spending from $13.5 billion to $20 billion. And to put $20 billion in perspective, that is the equivalent of all federal tax revenue from North Dakota, Vermont, Wyoming, South Dakota, Montana, Alaska and Delaware combined.

DAVIDSON: I don’t think people pay enough attention to even know if their elected officials are “bringing home the bacon” as you said. The only people who really benefit from most earmarks are corporate interests. People usually hit the polls and either vote for the lesser of the two evils, or for whatever member of their party happens to be on the ballot.

The only reason we’re hearing about this now is because the Democrats brought it up, and made promises to get themselves elected. I wonder if even 20% of registered voters know of one pork-barrel project. Elected Republicans are bringing it up now because they can use Democrat earmarks to try and take the majority back in 09.

DUMINIAK: Oh but people do know what gets brought home.  Politicians send out pre-election mailings detailing all the good they did for the community.  $5000 for a fire hall, $1 million for an industrial park or what have you.  Why else would anyone worry about ‘clout’?  Look at Senator Specter from Pennsylvania.  He won a close primary against a strong conservative mainly by appealing to moderates and getting money from labor unions based on his pork barrel spending ‘for the benefit of working Pennsylvanians’ and also because he had “clout”.  What good is “clout” when you waste it on destructive votes and petty self-aggrandizing nonsense.  But, the truth is that people respond to the argument about experience and success in office when the truth is that most incumbents have been picking the pockets of the average citizen.

CRUSH: Citizens Against Government Waste does outstanding work tracking earmarks. Their website is great for finding where your money is going and who is spending it.

The thing about these pork projects is that they are corrupt. The earmarks give individual members of Congress the money to distribute as they see fit. Today, many of those seeking to obtain grants now must give a political donation, instead of filing an application to receive their federal grants. In fact, the FBI has investigated several members of congress for corruption as there is great potential for them to benefit financially. Also there is virtually no accountability or oversight since these “grants” are handed out outside of any competitive process. Occasionally, the money is even embezzled by the recipients.

DAVIDSON: Any way you slice it, earmarks are in direct opposition to the constitution. While they’re not specifically mentioned, the powers of the federal government to collect and distribute funds were severely limited. It’s high time the people were actually informed of the actual costs associated with these “pet” projects. They’re certainly not free, even to the people who might (and I stress might) benefit. Lets say that a state pays somewhere in the neighborhood of one billion in federal taxes. Not the state exactly, but the residents of the state. After it’s cut up, divided and snorted; that one million dollar “pet” project for the state in nowhere near free.

I would even venture to say that over 70% more money would be available for state programs if the money weren’t sent to Washington first to be divided. It would also be constitutional if the states administered and funded the projects themselves.

I’m for a law that either makes earmarks illegal, or a constitutional amendment which specifically prohibits them. Without something like the Enumerated Powers Act (H.R. 1359), or the like, congress will go one spending as they always have at the expense of the people. The only thing we can do for now is keep urging our “leaders” to oppose the practice, and try as hard as we can to inform the people about the issue. I have to believe that we can change things. I just have to hope we can do it before it’s too late to go back.

DUMINIAK: While I oppose earmarks, the fact remains that Congress runs off of contributions to campaigns that come from earmarks that promote various corporate and special interests.  Fixing it would take a lot more than a grass roots effort.  It would take a well funded PAC that pushed an amendment and could afford to challenge members of Congress in tough primaries or general elections in order to either extort their vote or replace them with someone who will vote for the amendment.  It really would have to be at least a 5 year and more likely 10 year effort to raise the money and push the process.  There are some excellent truly conservative PACs out there already that might be interested in taking this on.  Someone like Ron Paul could certainly help raise money towards it as he has proven he can energize the disgruntled masses, at least to the point of sending in a donation.

DAVIDSON: You’re probably right. As long as it’s corporations and corporate PAC’s who are funding major campaigns, we’ll have this problem. I doubt even the most effective “true conservative” would have much of an affect. Without more people, especially those in office, earmarks are here to stay. One thing which can be done is for everyday people to start spreading the word. We need to vote the “excess” brotherhood out of office, and concentrate on more honest ones. Lord knows where we’d find candidates who are honest, but there’s always hope.

CRUSH: After years of exploding earmarks under the watch of the Republican leadership, the GOP badly needs to return to their principles of limited government. I single out the Republicans because apart from meaningless platitudes, the Democrat Party is barely even on the map on earmark reform.

Perhaps to eliminate the so-called “culture of corruption” label, they could start by nominating Congressman Jeff Flake (R-AZ) to the House Appropriations Committee. Mr. Flake has never made a single earmark request, and has offered 19 amendments to cut pork-barrel projects from bills. On average, just 68 members voted for the amendments. In the Senate, Tom Coburn (R-OK) and John McCain (R-AZ) have offered five such amendments.

It is time to stem the tide of billions of dollars of American taxpayer money that are redistributed for political gain. If Alaska wants a “Bridge to Nowhere,” then I say Alaska should pay for it, not me. Leave earmarks where they belong – in the hands of local and state government.

©COPYRIGHT 2008 UNTO THE BREACH MEDIA