- Seattle socialist: Minimum-wage discussion skewed by ‘right-wing’ GAO analysis
- U.N. warns of Muslim ‘cleansing’ in Central African Republic
- Senate blocks change to military sex assault cases
- Drug mix may have cured child born with HIV, doctors say
- De Blasio’s wife irks former mansion chef with ‘servant’ remark
- Russia’s neighbors shiver amid Putin’s Cold War moves in Ukraine
- New SAT: The essay portion is to become optional
- Military group can’t march to honor the fallen at Boston Marathon due to security changes
- Senate passes bills deleting ‘retarded’ from laws
- China announces biggest military hike in 3 years: We are not ‘boy scouts with spears’
MILLER: Earmarks rise again
House Republicans revive idea of buying votes with pet spending projects
It didn’t take long for earmarks to try for a comeback. After the Tea Party swept the 2010 midterm elections, House Republicans used their majority power to put an end to pork-barrel projects. Now 15 months later, the Republican caucus is split over bringing them back or ending them once and for all.
In a closed-door conference meeting in early March, Republican leaders debated how to get enough support to pass the controversial transportation reauthorization bill. Rep. Mike Rogers, Alabama Republican, used the opportunity to suggest reviving earmarks to encourage members to support legislation that directly helps their districts.
The reaction at the meeting was mixed. Some caucus members want to bring back the pet projects in another form in the next Congress. Mr. Rogers told Reuters that House Speaker John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican, is considering forming a committee to study earmarks, but Mr. Boehner’s spokesman Michael Steel said, “There is no ‘earmark committee’ being formed.”
Others in the caucus remain firmly opposed. “Earmarks aren’t coming back.” Rep. Jim Jordan, chairman of the 165-member Republican Study Committee (RSC) told The Washington Times. “Why would anyone want to make it easier to round up votes for bad legislation?”
Freshman Rep. Tim Scott opposes even small earmarks because they lead to the passage of much more expensive bills. “Obamacare is at the very least a $2.6 trillion new entitlement that passed by having a couple hundred million in earmarks,” the South Carolina Republican said in an interview. “I think we have probably changed the course of our financial history more significantly because of earmarks than probably anything else.”
Those worried that bridges to nowhere are making a comeback want them banned for good. The Senate recently gave up the special-interest projects through 2013. House Republicans passed the ban in their conference rules for the 112th Congress. “If anything, we need to strengthen the earmark ban,” said Mr. Jordan. “We should put it into the official rules of the House and make it permanent.”
A bipartisan bill sponsored by Sen. Pat Toomey, Pennsylvania Republican, and Sen. Claire McCaskill, Missouri Democrat, that would eliminate the pork spending failed by one vote in the upper chamber in February. GOP presidential frontrunner Mitt Romney endorsed the permanent ban. Technically, one Congress can’t bind the rules for another, but the concept is to truly end the practice, not reform it.
A vocal minority - perhaps slight majority - of the Republican conference prefers “reform” next year. These members have a point that earmarks help them represent their districts’ interests better by directing federal tax dollars to match their constituents’ specific needs. Sooner or later, however, leadership is going to use such projects to cut backroom deals.
“When you’re spending $3.8 trillion a year, there’s a lot of opportunity for shenanigans, some ethical and some not,” Mr. Scott explained. “Earmarks in most cases are on the side of legal, but I’m not quite sure that they are always ethical.” That’s why congressional pork projects should be allowed to rest in peace.
Emily Miller is a senior editor for the Opinion pages at The Washington Times.
© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
About the Author
Emily Miller is senior editor of opinion for The Washington Times. She is the author of “Emily Gets Her Gun … But Obama Wants to Take Yours” (Regnery 2013). Miller won the 2012 Clark Mollenhoff Award for Investigative Reporting from the Institute on Political Journalism.
- MILLER: CPAC debates Tea Party or moderate for 2016 Republican presidential candidate
- MILLER: Huge majorities on East Coast support national gun registry
- MILLER: NRA to score Senate vote on Obama’s nominee for surgeon general, Vivec Murthy
- MILLER: New Jersey bill is outright gun ban on .22-caliber rifles and leads to confiscation
- MILLER: California attorney general tries to overturn gun carry ruling in 9th Circuit
Latest Blog Entries
TWT Video Picks
By Tammy Bruce
Get Breaking Alerts
- Putin has transformed Russian army into a lean, mean fighting machine
- Bill Clinton cashes in on struggling nonprofit hospital
- DELAY: A revolution for the Constitution
- BRUCE: Obama's bizarre immigration rules
- Unemployment insurance vote could happen next week
- PRUDEN: Likening Putin to Hitler on Ukraine shows Hillary's shaky grasp of history
- Otter attacks, kills alligator at Florida wildlife refuge
- Calif. shop facing angry fire pulls 'smart gun' from shelves
- R-S-P-E-C-T: Find out what it means for Obama
- Back to the Future: HUVr Tech marketing video goes viral with hoverboard release tease
Recent Letters to the Editor
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Turkey not committed to Cyprus peace
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Spoiled-kid culture creates greedy adults
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Obama's flawed Mideast 'peace' plan
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Foreign policy would distract Obama from social hour
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Hit Putin where it hurts over Ukraine