- The Washington Times - Friday, April 7, 2006

Critics of the lobbying reform bill recently passed by the Senate say it doesn’t adequately address earmarks, those highly specific appropriations legislators slip into spending bills to help special interests. Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, spoke for many when he said this kind of spending “has bred lobbyists, which has bred corruption,” leading to “all these egregious abuses.”

But according to Sen. Larry Craig and Rep. Mike Simpson, earmarking is every legislator’s constitutional duty. “The Framers of the Constitution clearly stated that Congress, not the president or federal bureaucrats, should allocate funding for the various functions of government,” the two Idaho Republicans say in an online commentary. “Ending the practice of earmarking would transfer massive funding authority to the president and the federal agencies in defiance of the Constitution.”

This defense of pork as not just permitted but mandated by the Constitution gets points for audacity. But Mr. Craig and Mr. Simpson’s fidelity to the Framers’ vision is strangely selective, and their argument for earmarking reflects a Capitol Hill mentality that’s the strongest reason to oppose the practice.

According to the Congressional Research Service, the number of earmarks, about 14,000 last year, has more than tripled since 1994. Mr. Craig and Mr. Simpson concede “not every one of the thousands of congressional earmarks has been worthy of support” and some members of Congress have “enrich[ed] themselves and their families at the expense of taxpayers.”

But the two self-described “fiscal conservatives” defend what they call “earnest earmarks” that direct federal dollars to legislators’ states and districts. They proudly cite earmarks they obtained that “built new wastewater infrastructure in Bonners Ferry, supported jobs at the Idaho National Laboratory, improved housing for families at Mountain Home Air Force Base, and expanded course offerings at Boise State University.”

It’s doubtful legislators who reflexively demand more money for their own states and districts will do a better job of allocating funds for military housing than “some nameless, faceless bureaucrat in Washington, D.C., who has never stepped foot in Idaho,” which is how Mr. Craig and Mr. Simpson describe the guy who would make spending decisions in the absence of earmarks. And remember the Constitution, the one that gives Congress the fiscal powers Mr. Craig and Mr. Simpson are so keen to defend? Where in that document is Congress empowered to spend taxpayers’ money on local wastewater treatment, college courses or nuclear energy research? The relevant provisions are even harder to find than evidence of Mr. Craig and Mr. Simpson’s fiscal conservatism.

These two clearly think defying the Constitution to buy votes with taxpayers’ money is better than taking bribes to steer military contracts toward certain companies, for which Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham, California Republican, got an eight-year prison term. I’m not so sure. After all, Mr. Cunningham’s favoritism did help create jobs in his district, and at least national defense is a legitimate federal government function.

In dollar terms, pork for power — the kind lawmakers publicize because they think it will help them stay in office — is a much bigger problem than pork for pay. Few members of Congress maintain a Cunningham-style “bribe menu,” but almost all send out newsletters bragging about the bacon they brought home.

Mr. Craig and Mr. Simpson are right about one thing: Abolishing earmarks would not, by itself, have much effect on federal spending, even if the money was cut instead of reallocated. The Congressional Research Service’s numbers indicate earmarks account for something like 2 percent of the federal budget.

But as Heritage Foundation budget expert Brian Riedl notes, legislators have been known to support big-ticket items such as the Medicare drug benefit in exchange for the promise of pork. More fundamentally, “earnest earmarks” reinforce the smug belief there’s nothing shameful about treating money forcibly taken from other people as a slush fund to help you win a popularity contest.

Jacob Sullum is a nationally syndicated columnist.

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide