Obama Steps on the Earmark Hornet's Nest
As he signed a $410 billion spending bill that Republicans hammered for its thousands of earmarks, President Obama unveiled new proposals to shed sunlight on the practice that's known as either "pork" or "congressionally directed spending" -- depending on whether you're talking to its critics or its defenders.
Earmarks have undoubtedly been misused and abused over the years, both by disgraced lawmakers (see Cunningham, Randy "Duke") and lobbyists (see Abramoff, Jack). The process' inherent risk of influence-peddling makes it no easy task to defend earmarks -- and sure enough, Obama's attempt to defend the practice fell flat with its chief Senate critics, Russ Feingold (D-WI) and John McCain (R-AZ).
Feingold and McCain's unmoved reactions to the presidential earmark fueled some critical media coverage, with the Politico headlining its story "Obama goes soft on pork".
Did Obama offer little more than a band-aid on the growth of earmarks?
As The Nation pointed out yesterday in a well-reasoned defense of the practice, doing away with earmarks would effectively shift the power to misuse the federal purse from Congress to state-level officials. That concern surfaced during debate over the stimulus, which Obama successfully kept free of earmarks.
Feingold has a specific priority for earmark reform: requiring that each earmarked project be authorized by Congress before specific money is appropriated. That's an admirable goal, but fulfilling it would consume wildly unrealistic amounts of time in a Capitol building that's already nearly paralyzed by partisan maneuvering.
In the end, perhaps Obama's biggest omission on earmarks was the naked hypocrisy that his administration rarely noted in the open. Many of the lawmakers from both parties who love to blast earmarks make an exception for the "pork" that they themselves have requested (see Kyl, Jon).
The non-partisan Taxpayers for Common Sense (TCS) offered a damning statistic, finding that 28 of the 35 senators who opposed the $410 billion spending bill had earmarks of their own within the bill, but the Obama team didn't make any hay from the TCS numbers ... thus missing a chance to undercut some of their critics.
Josh
Matt
Eric
Brian
What was the hornet's nest alluded to in the title? That he mentioned earmarks at all in his remarks?
I'm afraid I don't understand this entire post.
As for this: but the Obama team didn't make any hay from the TCS numbers ... thus missing a chance to undercut some of their critics.
But Obama himself did undercut his critics in his remarks. He said that many of those complaining the loudest also insert earmarks and then go home and brag about it. Did you not hear those remarks?
???
March 11, 2009 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like to know what the Hornet's nest is too!
March 12, 2009 8:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think most folks hate pork the way McCain would like you to think. Besides it's up to Congress, not the President. Let the Senators defend their requests for earmarks if their challenger tries to use it against them. Why is it the decision of senators held against Obama? The only Senators who can raise any stink are the ones who didn't take a penny - the rest are hypocrites looking for cheap political points. And those who want earmarks greatly out number those who do not.
March 11, 2009 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem is that people hate earmarks, but they love "pork." In other words, if it's the targeting of tax dollars to be spent in another District, it is an earmark and should not be allowed. If those monies target an enterprise or such within my own community, however, it is "pork." All Rep's understand this as a difficult dilemma.
Although Feingold struggles to arrive at a good solution to this problem, I do not think he is dismissive of all earmarks as being bad - for reasons pointed out in this post.
But inasmuch as earmarks can be the quid pro quo offered for campaign contributions, they need to be tightly controlled. The trick is in trying to devise an effective control. I continue watching Feingold to see just what that might be.
March 12, 2009 9:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's remarkable that less than 1% of the budget gets so much attention.
Obviously it's important to eliminate corruption and waste, but the problems with earmarks are WAY overstated.
March 11, 2009 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Obama team didn't make any hay from the TCS numbers ... thus missing a chance to undercut some of their critics."
There are plenty of Democrats who would come under fire for their earmarks if BHO elevates the issue further. Lawmakers' hypocrisy will come to light in TV spots, regardless.
March 11, 2009 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really don't have a problem with earmarks, as long as they're openly disclosed and not hidden in the footnotes. For what they're worth, here are my suggestions for effective reform of the current congressional legislative process:
First, earmarks should not be tacked onto totally unrelated pieces of legislation, as is presently and unfortunately the practice on far too many occasions. Rather, earmarks should be included only in those fiscal measures relating to the federal budget, and their purpose should be properly disclosed within its proper subsection.
Second, the contents of any proposed bill up for third or final reading must be entirely germain to its original title and description. Provisions for underground storage tank removal, highway repair and shipbuilding, as laudable as they might be, do not belong in the Omnibus Education Act.
Finally, and I consider this most important, Congress adopt the universal Ramseyer format when writing its legislation.
Ramseyer format requires that any section or subsection of statute subject to proposed amendment be printed in its entirety within the body of the bill. Those words or passages to be deleted from statute must be encased within brackets. Any new material to be added to statute must be underscored.
Ramseyer formating allows both the general public and the media to see and read any proposed legislation in its entirety, without having to repeatedly reference a complete multi-volume set of state or federal code in order to translate the measure into something readily understandable.
Most, if not all, state legislatures and municipal governments in this country use Ramseyer format. It's about time Congress does away with its archaic manner of bill-writing, which serves only to confuse many of its own members and staff about a given measure's actual contents, and leaves the general public collectively writhing in near-hopeless frustration.
Aloha.
March 11, 2009 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
The piece refers to "...the presidential earmark...". Maybe I missed a crucial part of the story. Did Obama originate an earmark?
March 11, 2009 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
In addition to not seeing the hornet's nest, I'm also not clear on why failing to fluff the Ghost of William Proxmire Society is a bad ting, nor am I clear on why Obama's failure to satisfy the unsatisfiable McCain and Feingold would be newsworthy. That's like "This just in: dogs bark!" The day those two stop comlaining that the forces of evil are thwarting their noble efforts to deliver on some bad policy utopia they've jointly imagined into existence is the day they stop getting sweet, sweet camera time.
March 12, 2009 8:51 AM | Reply | Permalink