The Earmark Moratorium
March 12, 2008
Since the beginning of the 2008 campaign season there are several issues that have been on the top of candidates’ lists of priorities: Iraq, the economy, illegal immigration. All of them have been debated and discussed. One of them, though, has prompted members of Congress to sponsor a dramatic new piece of legislation – earmarks.
Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) has proposed a bill that would kill all federal legislative earmarks for one year. And he’s not alone. Joining him are presidential candidates Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona), Sen. Barack Obama (D-Illinois), and Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-New York). He is also receiving support from other members of Congress, from both sides of the aisle, including Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Missouri), Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wisconsin), and Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma) (Fox).
For those who see earmarks as a sign of corruption, the bill is a breath of fresh air. Barack Obama addressed the issue, saying, “I have come to believe that the system is broken. We can no longer accept a process that doles out earmarks based on a member of Congress’ seniority, rather than the merit of the project. We can no longer accept an earmarks process that has become so complicated to navigate that a municipality or nonprofit group has to hire high-priced D.C. lobbyists to do it. And we can no longer accept an earmarks process in which many of the projects being funded fail to address the real needs of our country” (CBS). Senator McCain offered his own to-the-point perspective, saying, “I absolutely support the amendment to abolish [earmarks] altogether” (WSJ).
The proposal is not universally loved, however. Its critics (many of whom are members of appropriations committees) argue that earmarks are the only way that some communities can receive the necessary funding for various projects: “It’s going to hurt less populated places,” said Kent Conrad (D-North Dakota), the Senate Budget Committee Chairman. “I don’t think the answer is to throw the baby out with the bath water.” Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), who came under fire for appropriating funds for a “bridge to nowhere,” also opposes the bill: “A small state, we don’t have agency bureaus, and we’ll get less money.”
Others argue that the bill will do nothing to promote real fiscal discipline. Judd Gregg (R-New Hampshire), a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said, “It doesn’t do anything for fiscal discipline. It’s a phantom idea. It’s one of those feel-good amendments that makes us feel like we’re doing the Lord’s work” (Politico).
With mounting pressure to reduce spending, balance the budget, and improve the economy, legislators will have to consider their options carefully. On the one hand, many consider earmarks to be part of their duty as representatives of their districts (many earmarks fund local or state projects). Others, however, see them as ways of securing political favors or financial backing for their campaigns.
Whether there is enough support for the bill remains to be seen. Which way the scales tip could end up depending on which way other leaders lean, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
