The saying in Hollywood is that "you're only as good as your last movie." In Washington, the saying should be "you're only as good as your last earmark." Earmarking refers to a practice that is common among many in elected office, of adding last-minute provisions to spending bills, provisions that are specifically targeted for a new program or service within their district or state. Earmarks are never debated nor discussed in open committee hearings so they are almost never publicized. The whole point is to get the earmark passed as quietly and quickly as possible, so that the rest of the country doesn't find out about it. This essentially boils down to a process by which elected officials can appease interest groups in their districts or states with the least amount of negative publicity over their actions. Ironically, it is the most important committee chairs that use earmarking most often, even though they are the same Washington players who complain that the government should cut spending.
The argument that politicians use to defend themselves is that earmarking is the only way they can get funding for programs that their districts "desperately" need. More often though, the programs are ones that would be or have already been voted down in committee. Another argument is that allowing a member of congress to earmark money for a pet-project, is sometimes the only way to convince that same member of congress to vote for the overall bill. This argument is unacceptable because it means that every mildly controversial bill would turn into a bidding war to see who can get the most money for their vote. Members of congress should vote for a bill if they believe it is in the interests of the country to do so, and if they sincerely oppose it, they should do so openly and be held accountable on Election Day.
This year's earmarks, that would otherwise go unseen and unheard of, were publicized last week thanks to the diligent efforts of a non-partisan, non-profit group called the Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW). The group went about the arduous process of combing through every appropriations bill in order to find all of the measures inserted as earmarks in this year's budget. Regular spending bills contain money for boring run-of-the-mill government programs like Medicaid or food stamps. It isn't until you start looking at earmarks that you see political creativity at its best. You can decide for yourself whether you think these measures were worthy of your money.
Some of this year's most outrageous earmarks (all cited on www.cagw.org) include Rep. Jack Kingston's (R-Ga.) $100,000 for Vidalia onion research; Sen. Ernest Hollings' (D-S.C.) $1 million for a bridge to various golf resorts; Sen. Mitch McConnell's (R-Ky.) $1 million for a satellite telescope at Western Kentucky University; Sen. Patrick Leahy's (D-Vt.) $5 million for Vermont's gasification project; Sen. Ted Stevens' (R-Ala.) $12.5 million for a military project to heat up the ionosphere (Stevens has earmarked more than $1 billion since 1991); and last, but by no means least, Sen. Trent Lott's (R-Miss.) $375 million amphibious assault ship (that the Navy didn't request).
The strange thing about many earmarks is that many seem like they would be easy to justify in an open committee hearing. One earmark that seems reasonable and was particularly close to home was Senator Judd Gregg's (R-N.H.) allocation of $15 million for a research project on technological terrorism at the Dartmouth Institute for Security Studies. Part of the problem in deciding how to spend money is that the "beauty" of a program usually depends on the eye of the beholder. A program that might seem "crucial" to Southerners can often appear ridiculous to Northerners and visa-versa. There is nothing wrong with achieving compromises between various congressional coalitions, as long as it is done openly for all to see. Programs that aren't in the interests of the nation or a particular region should not be funded by federal tax dollars.
Despite the overwhelming evidence of waste at the federal level, it is important to keep in mind that not all government spending is bad government spending. A large majority of government spending is appropriated in a responsible and accountable way -- through open committee debates. Open debate in committee hearings forces politicians to make a case for a particular program and allows others to point out alternatives or more cost-efficient ways to solve a particular problem. But allowing politicians to secretly spend our taxes on programs that will ensure their re-election is the same as theft. We deserve and should demand better from our elected officials. Earmarking must end.
