If you thought the furor a few years ago over the "Bridge to Nowhere" in Alaska prompted Congress to kill earmarks, think again. The 2010 budget approved by Congress and signed by the president contained nearly 10,000 congressional earmarks worth $15.9 billion, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense. There were more than 11,000 earmarks worth $15.6 billion the year before (Congress has yet to approve a new federal budget this year, so those are the most recent available figures). While the total cost of congressional earmarks was up slightly in 2010, there was a significant decline in the number of earmarks requested by senators and representatives, so at least some progress was made. But there is much more to the earmark story than the numbers.
In March 2010, months before a massive November election victory that swept them back into the majority in the House and greatly increased their numbers in the Senate, the Republican conferences in both chambers adopted temporary earmark moratoriums. The bans were continued this year, and President Obama promised to veto any legislation that came to him containing earmarks. Also, Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye of Hawaii said his panel would not accept earmark requests. So there shouldn't be any earmarks, right?
Not exactly. Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-MO, says the moratoriums contain loopholes, so, for example, the just-passed defense spending bill included new earmarks. That's why she and Sen. Pat Toomey, R-PA, are pushing a permanent earmark ban by creating a new Senate rule granting every senator the power to challenge any bill containing earmarks. A two-thirds majority of the Senate would be required to overrule the challenge. Tom Coburn or Jim DeMint, conservative senators who consistently challenge what they see as wasteful spending, would know exactly what to do with this new tool.
Considering the all-time low public approval rating of Congress, you would think such a proposal would gain unanimous approval. But McCaskill and Toomey told The Hill this week they believe both Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell would rather not let the proposal come to the floor for a vote. "I think to vote against a moratorium on earmarking right now would be a very dangerous vote. It would be an 'I don't get it' vote. You know, one of those votes that tells the American people Congress is really out of touch. I think this would be the whipped cream and cherry on top of the dysfunction sundae," McCaskill said.
McCaskill is right about the Senate, but all Washington politicians should take note: Texas Gov. Rick Perry consistently draws enthusiastic cheers whenever he talks about his proposal to cut congressional pay in half and "make 'em go come back home with the rest of us and get a real job." And President Obama ought not ignore the intense response to New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie's question in light of the chief executive's recent silence during the debate in Congress on the budget: "What the hell are we paying you for?" That's a great question for everybody in government these days.
Congress still passes earmarks to build bridges to nowhere (Washington Examiner)
Discussion
Sign Up for Updates
