Earmarks, My Eye!

Let's start with the connection between earmarks ans Abramoff. When politicians can insert clauses in spending bills that direct federal dollars to private entities, for projects that are not tied to an existing federal program or purpose... I mean, what else can you expect but corruption, giveaways, and the distribution of pay-in monies? Corruption isn't a by-product of that system, it IS THE SYSTEM.

Since the beneficiaries (whether business, union, or governmental/NGO entities) stand to benefit so disprortionately, the "return" on their lobbying and PAC dollars encourages them to... yup, hire lobbyists, grease the wheels, and have their pet pol throw in clauses at midnight just before a vote. Their contributions get moved around within the parties, and presto! Here we are today.

How far has the USA come? Sen. Coburn [R-OK] in "Dr. Coburn Says Shutting Down 'Earmark Favor Factory' Key to Post-Abramoff Reforms":

"In 1987, President Ronald Reagan vetoed a spending bill because it contained 121 earmarks. The number of earmarks approved by Congress grew to 1,439 in 1995. Last year, Congress approved 13,998 earmarks."

Absorb those figures for a moment. Now, is there a meaningful check on this? No.

This is one of the "government failure" dimensions that has become widely recognized over the past 40 years - the beneficiaries receive so much that they have a great interest in each item and will fight hard for it, while the mass of voters whose money they hijack have a very diffuse interest in each item. Hence the oodles of "Robert C. Byrd...(fill in the blank)" facilities et. al. all over West Virginia. If you remove even the basic check of requiring negotiations and logrolling between pols for agreement on budgetary inserts, as earmarks do - then there is no hope of reform, ever. Or indeed, of anything but massive acceleration of the problem.

I mean, at least Billy the Kid took some physical risks when he robbed people.

Back to Dr. Coburn (the Senator ran a not-for-profit medical practice, until a vengeful Senate Ethics Committee made it impossible for him to do so after the bridge thing):

"Abramoff has described the appropriations committees, and, by extension, the appropriations process, as an "earmark favor factory" in which influence and votes are bought and sold.

Congress does not need to reform the lobbying industry as much as it needs to reform itself. The willingness of politicians to abuse the appropriations process through earmarking has caused the explosive growth in the lobbying industry and encouraged the excesses illustrated by the Jack Abramoff scandal. It is not enough for our leaders to propose reforms that might promote the appearance, but not necessarily the practice, of ethical behavior.

For the American people, the Abramoff scandal is only beginning to connect the dots between politicians, individual earmarks, lobbyists and campaign contributions."

One hopes. It's more important for the GOP to connect the dots, though.

"Behind each of the 14,000 earmarks Congress approved last year is a story that many politicians will not want their constituents to hear."

Actually, the example of Robert "Grand Wizard" Byrd suggests otherwise. As long as the earmarks flow to constituents, they results in support, contributions, and votes. Some may even create positive local effects - but the problem isn't about the usefulness of each earmark, it's about the degraded accountability and invitation to hucksters and payoffs. The question thus becomes how to make this sort of thing harder rather than easier to accomplish.

"...Pork politics is not an ancient practice that can't be reformed."

Well, actually it is ancient, and it can't be wholly reformed. Indeed, the nature of big government makes corruption attractive in direct proportion to government's size. I give you Dr. Jack Wheeler:

"The problem, which the Democrats only want to politicize and have not the slightest desire to solve, is what's for sale - the power of Congress to dispense vast amounts of money or pass laws that can either subsidize or destroy businesses and entire industries."

Or, as Frank Herbert always said:

"It isn't that power corrupts, but that it attracts the corruptible."

Nevertheless, Sen. Coburn has a solid point when he says:

"Pork as we know it today didn't exist 20 years ago. As the majority party, my fellow Republicans have to make a choice – our majority or our pork..."

The GOP's Choices

You can see why I love this guy. So, are others following?

House Majority Leader candidate John Boenher [R-OH] has an OpinionJournal column up called "Keep Politics Kosher." Boenher has distinguished himself by avoiding earmarks throughout his 15-year political career as a matter of principle, which speaks well for him. He says:

"My Republican colleague, Jeff Flake of Arizona, has bold ideas to solve this problem. He proposes that the earmarking process be transparent: All earmarks should be included in the actual text of legislation, so members can see them before they vote. He believes, as I do, that this would make it much harder to adopt earmarks that can't be substantively justified, while also allowing earmarks that are legitimate. I think Mr. Flake is off to a strong start, and I support his efforts."

As a starting point, this couldn't hurt. It just isn't enough to offer serious help. Fortunately:

"I'd like to go even further, though. Last week, in a letter to David Dreier, the House Rules Committee chairman and the speaker's point man on lobbying reform, I called for a ban on earmarks that serve lobbying interests at the expense of the public interest."

OK. Politician talking... play it cautious... look for the weasel...

"We need to establish some clear standards by which worthy projects can be distinguished from worthless pork, so that pork projects can be halted in their tracks as soon as they are identified. For example, earmarks should meet the specific purpose of the authorizing statute. They should not give a private entity a competitive edge unless it is in the immediate national security interest of the country. They should not be a substitute for state and local fiscal responsibility. They should be used sparingly, and ideally, they should be a one-time appropriation for a specific national need."

Ah. Worthy principles, but the first sentence kills him dead in terms of meaningful reform. Now, at Defense Industry Daily I've certainly covered stuff that didn't meet the purpose of the statute (would you believe RFK Stadium in a defense bill?). But who, exactly, will be making these calls and enforcing this stuff? Besides, politicians will always say the project is worthy, even if they really mean worthy of getting them a quid pro quo PAC contribution. If we could depend on that dynamic, we wouldn't be in the present pickle in the first place.

So... either figure out how to enact some form of line-item veto at an Executive level (with a changed Supreme Court so it survives), or take judging of "worthiness" off the table.

Riding in from parts west, John Shadegg [R-AZ] has thrown in as a long-shot challenger in a Contract With America mold. "The American people are with us on our substantive policy agenda and our Reaganite values, but are becoming repulsed by our behavior," he says.

Honesty is a good start. And as OpinionJournal notes:

"One wonders whether the young-gun conservatives in the House fully appreciate what's at stake here. Few current House members even remember that the first shots in the Republican Revolution of 1994 were fired in 1989, when upstart Newt Gingrich rallied the conservative troops in the House and shockingly defeated by one vote the Bob Michel machine candidate for minority whip (the No. 2 leadership perch). The conservatives for the first time in a generation had a foothold of power. Shortly thereafter, the power structure shifted again when free-marketer Dick Armey of Texas, a longtime backbencher in the House, evicted another old bull Republican from the leadership team, Jerry Lewis of California. (It's a sign of the party's lost bearings that Mr. Lewis, the epitome of so much of what's wrong with the congressional Republicans, has been made Appropriations Committee chairman and has been even talked about as belonging back in the leadership.)"

Spine and a mobilizing agenda are what the Republicans, and their base, need from Congress. The President is passing into the twilight of his term, traditionally a lame duck period. Barring catastrophic events (which are, I admit, more than possible), the torch is passed. Leading a major campaign that not only removes earmarks as an option without conditions or weaseling, but strikes also at the deeper enablers of corruption in the bloated federal system, would be a very positive thing. Especially for conservatives who have looked at President Bush's spending patterns with something akin to despair.

But none of that can happen if the GOP continues on its present course - the course championed by Rep. Blunt.

The race will shake itself out, and then we'll see what's what. Larry Kudlow, with one reminder:

"Citizens Against Government Waste calls 2005 a record year for pork. The group identified 13,997 pork projects in the fiscal 2005 appropriations bills, costing taxpayers $27.3 billion, an increase of 31 percent over fiscal 2004."

The GOP has a choice to make. And whether they realize it or not, their choice will make a difference - and send a message.

UPDATES:

• See comment #4 from John Hadjisky - very intelligent. The question is whether the inevitable abuses make earmarks a good but unworkable idea.

• John Fund chimes in along similar lines, and points out some key loopholes in lobbying and gift-related laws. The ones related to local governments, for instance, who don't count when they spend money for such purposes....