- Egypt rights center raided, 2 Mubaraks acquitted
- New Mexico Supreme Court rules same-sex marriage constitutional
- Blame Bush: 5 years later, that’s still the mantra, pollsters find
- Dutch prostitutes demand same retirement benefits as soccer stars
- John McCain to Harry Reid: I’ll ‘kick the crap’ out of you
- Dogs that talk: Researchers seek $10K for ‘No More Woof’ technology
- 1,000 firefighters called to battle stubborn Big Sur wildfire
- Black Friday brouhaha: Millions of Target shoppers hit by credit card theft
- Britain orders airplane to rescue citizens from violent South Sudan
- Mega Millions winner emerges as Georgia mom, in ‘disbelief’
Katrina, Bridge to Nowhere spurred ‘storm’ that doomed earmarks
Question of the Day
It may have looked like boom times for earmarkers in 2006, when they carved out a record $29 billion in projects — but little did lawmakers realize that a perfect storm of events the year before had set the clock ticking on pork.
What one anti-earmark operative called the “perfect storm” of runaway spending, lawmaker malfeasance and high-profile bad spending in 2005 set the stage for the slow decline of earmarking, culminating in this year’s moratorium on the practice.
“2005 was a major tipping point in the effort. Maybe we were still sledding uphill, but the hill got a little less steep. And it also showed there was political and public relations power in going against earmarks,” said Steve Ellis, vice president at Taxpayers for Common Sense, a chief earmark opposition group.
Glenn Reynolds, a law professor who in 2005 co-founded Porkbusters that helped harness the Internet to bring bipartisan pressure to bear on earmarkers, said Hurricane Katrina’s devastation, and Congress‘ inclination to tack $100 billion in Gulf Coast recovery spending onto the deficit rather than find cuts elsewhere, set the stage.
Others point to the notoriety of the Bridge to Nowhere, the tens of millions of dollars that were slated to go to a bridge project in Alaska to connect a town of about 8,000 people to an island of 50 — despite the island already having regular ferry service.
Then, in late 2005, Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham, California Republican, resigned and pleaded guilty to taking bribes in exchange for steering business to supporters’ companies, and early in 2006, top lobbyist Jack Abramoff pleaded guilty to fraud, tax evasion and conspiracy to bribe public officials.
Earmarking wasn’t over, but it was about to fundamentally change as Democrats saw through a series of transparency reforms and earmark limits that gave an unprecedented look at who was making requests and who was winning projects.
The number and dollar amount of projects began to slide, but lawmakers continued to jealously guard the practice.
The first major crack in the unified earmarking front came at the House Republicans’ annual retreat in 2008 when, led by then-GOP leader John A. Boehner of Ohio, Republicans decided they would give up all earmarks if Democrats did.
Democrats, who said their own transparency advances were sufficient, didn’t bite. But two years later, House Republicans went ahead and imposed the ban unilaterally, forcing every single lawmaker in both the House and Senate to face a decision.
Along the way, Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, won his party’s 2008 presidential nomination and brought the issue to voters in each of his presidential debates with then-candidate Sen. Barack Obama. And Mr. Obama and his chief primary opponent, then-Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, both voted for an earmark moratorium in the Senate in early 2008.
Mr. Obama’s own transformation on the issue presaged the broader change in Congress. When he joined the Senate in 2005, he earmarked extensively, but by 2007, he had embraced transparency, and by 2008, was swearing off earmarks altogether, at least for himself.
Still, in those debates with Mr. McCain, he minimized the importance of earmarks, and repeatedly scolded lawmakers for sending him pork-laden bills, but signed them nonetheless.
Fast forward to last month, though, when Mr. Obama used his State of the Union address to draw an absolute line: “Both parties in Congress should know this: If a bill comes to my desk with earmarks inside, I will veto it.”
© Copyright 2013 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
About the Author
Stephen Dinan can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
- Senators work late on 'take it or leave it' defense bill that ignores big issues
- Illegal immigrant girl smuggled into U.S. by federal agents: judge
- Deportations under Obama drop to 1 percent in fiscal 2013
- White House says it's open to 45 of panel's proposed 46 NSA changes
- Democrats cite pope in call for minimum wage hike, jobless benefits
Latest Blog Entries
By Michael P. Orsi
Edward Snowden should declare his patriotism in court
- Citing 'unfair system,' Obama commutes sentences for 8 crack offenders
- Homeland Security helps smuggle illegal immigrant children into the U.S.
- Gov't wasted $30 billion on 'pillownauts,' crystal goblets -- buying human urine!
- Bill Gates: The Secret Santa disguised as a 'friendly fellow' on Reddit
- KELLNER: It's not a Merry Christmas for the persecuted church
- PRUDEN: 'Tis the season for apologies
- Special ops vets slam military benefit cuts
- ORSI: No greater act of loyalty to the Constitution
- TRIPLETT: Shale revolution reality checks
- Obama sends 45 service members to South Sudan
Independent voices from the The Washington Times Communities
Southern Fried Politics from the Lens of a Persian-American Millennial
All of the world’s problems, solved on your back porch
Top 10 handguns in the U.S.
Extraordinary day at Redskins Park
White House pets gone wild!
Let it snow