A New York Times story on earmarks reprinted in my Sunday paper caught my eye this morning. Its provocative lede:
If the idea was to shame lawmakers into restraint, it did not work.
Follow me for a few thoughts.
The article calls out Democratic lawmakers for continuing the practice of "earmarking" pet projects, even after new Senate rules shine light on those who would create earmarks.
It castigates Rep. Pelosi for $63M and Rep. Murtha for $163M in projects, saying that despite new rules, racking up $$ in earmarks is almost a pissing contest to see who would dare flaunt the cavalier spending of taxpayer $$:
Far from causing embarrassment, the new transparency has raised the value of earmarks as a measure of members’ clout.
What I consider to be one of the most important facts about earmarks doesn't appear until paragraph seven:
To be sure, the Democratic totals are less than half the record set by Republicans when they controlled Congress in 2005...
I know that half of winning an argument consists in framing the terms of the debate--instead of the original headline
"Despite scrutiny, push for earmarks unabated"
could a better headline be the following
"Dem lawmakers cut spending on earmarks in half"
In their best John Stossel "those wacky scientists are using your tax dollars to study the sex lives of Peruvian frogs--give me a break" fashion, the authors [Edmund L. Andrews and Robert Pear] give a sampling of lawmakers' pet projects
$2.6M for a new grape genetics research center at Cornell
$738K to study cancer-fighting chemicals in raspberries at Ohio State University
a contract for Texas A&M University to study the "root causes" of post-traumatic stress disorder
$3.6 million to design a Coast Guard Operations Systems Center in Kearneysville, W.Va.
without discussing the merits of any of the proposals. I'm not going to judge these proposals without further information, but I'm not sure any of them is a "Bridge to Nowhere".
My questions: Are earmarks a necessary evil? I know that lawmakers often try to spread a project around multiple districts so that multiple lawmakers have a vested interest in a positive outcome. Lawmakers also like to brag that they "bring home the bacon". Upstate NY's Joe Bruno [New York State Senate Majority Leader] is notorious for this. I know that lawmakers represent their particular districts but they also represent the nation as a whole. Do you curse or praise your own rep for bring home that stadium or park or research facility or senior center? Is there any way to get beyond the inverse NIMBY [if it's in my backyard, it must be a good and necessary project]? Is there any better way of proposing funding that doesn't give the impression [real or imagined] that lawmakers are exploitative piggies at the public trough?