Earmarks Shmearmarks!

Unless you have been living in a political cave for the past ten years you know that there is a proverbial problem with earmarks. Battle cries against earmarks are not uncommon during election years. Politicians seem to hate them. Everyone complains about them. In fact, President Obama took earmarks head on during his most recent State of the Union Address stating that he will VETO any bill with earmarks. Okay. We get it. Earmarks=bad. So what exactly are they?

What in the world?

Google “earmark” and a series of hits with political jargon combined with animal identification splashes across the screen. Here is the political earmark breakdown.

·        Merriam-Webster defines an earmark as a “provision in Congressional legislation that allocates a specific amount of money for a specific project, program, or organization.

·        Hard earmarks or hardmarks are law binding.

·        Soft earmarks or softmarks are not law binding.

·        Legislators use it as a way to get money back to their home state.

Why the bad rap?

Earmarks are passed without discussion, public hearing, transparency or accountability.  In short the legislator can “sneak” in their earmark and provide funds to pay off bribes made by campaign donors or lobbyists. Earmarks may be used to persuade other reluctant legislators to support bills. In short the more power a congressperson has the more earmarks they can acquire. Not only that, but with current budget issues and the concern to be frugal transparency should be required and demanded by the American people. In short, can I get a, “No fair!”

Wild, Wild West!

The way legislators talk about earmarks one might speculate that earmarks are an out of control practice, hence the wild, wild, west. Actually, that is not completely true. Since the 110^th Congress significant regulation practices are in place:

·        Earmark requests must be posted on the legislator’s website.

·        Legislators must also sign a certification letter stating that they (or their spouses) have nothing to gain from the earmark.

·        Many constituents can apply for earmarks.

·        Earmarks consist of <2% of the federal budget.

Worst Earmarks Eva!

Trying to find a comprehensive list of earmarks proves to be a difficult task. Finding a current list of earmark programs or money allocation is even more difficult. Either they are kept under pretty good wraps or they are not as common as one might speculate. Courtesy of the website http://www.akdart.com/pork3.html  here are some examples of the more colorful.

·        $1.8 Million to study why pigs smell.

·        $1.9 Million for a water taxi in Connecticut

·        $3.8 Million to preserve a baseball stadium in Detroit

·        $380,000 for a fairground in Kotzebue, Alaska (near the arctic circle)

·        $5 Million for tropical fish breeders and transporters for losses from a virus last year.

·        $283 Million for the Milk Income Loss Contract Program.

Any good?

If you have lived in the United States for any amount of times chances are you have benefitted from earmarks. Also, some argue the money is there, why not spend it? Plus, if Congress does not spend the money the allocation responsibility actually falls to the Executive Branch. Arguments could be made that the president would not be much fairer in the distribution of funds.  Plus some earmarks do bring good. Those include animal research projects, hiking paths, road improvements, and historical centers. One earmark that struck me was an appropriation for a bathroom at Mt. McKinley. I’ve never been to Mt. McKinley, but it is my guess that I would be quite grateful to have a bathroom during a visit.

Will it Last?

Congress appears to be quitting earmarks cold turkey. Currently it is doubtful if this fast from cash can last. Already rumblings among prominent congressmen include the new saying of earmarks are OKAY, it’s the pork barrel legislation that’s bad…Interesting.

Thanks to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earmark_(politics) for teaching me something.