Earmarks Are Back. The GOP’s Enthusiasm Is Worrying.

It might be the right decision in the abstract, but in reality it’s a little sickening.

By
73

A decade ago, one of the first things Republicans did after taking back the House of Representatives was get rid of earmarks. For those of you who don’t recall, “earmark” is the term of art for when members of Congress bring home the bacon to their district. The GOP was in a Tea Party-ish mood back then, and getting rid of “bridges to nowhere,” etc., was all the rage. 

At the time, I thought the earmark ban was an encouraging sign of reform. But in recent years, I’ve changed my mind somewhat. Yes, the practice had gotten out of control, and it drove some corrupt practices. But if the issue was runaway spending and debt, getting rid of earmarks was always more symbolic than serious. The main drivers of our national debt have always been entitlements, not road projects or ice skating rinks. 

If the price of getting Congress to implement serious entitlement reforms was a gold-plated monorail in every congressional district, it would be well worth it. Besides, who’s to say that a politician in constant contact with his district’s voters and civic leaders won’t have a better understanding of what his or her community needs than some bureaucrat a thousand miles away?

Also, getting rid of earmarks didn’t get rid of spending. As my American Enterprise Institute colleague Kevin Kosar documents in a new report, “Restoring the power of the purse: Earmarks and re-empowering legislators to deliver local benefits,” Congress still allocated money for transportation projects, community rec centers, scientific studies, etc. It’s just that the legislative branch gave up a lot of those decisions. Bureaucrats and political appointees in the executive branch got to decide where the goodies went. Getting rid of earmarks made almost no difference at all, and in some cases discretionary spending went up after the moratorium.

The ban not only weakened the congressional power of the purse, it turned legislators into elected lobbyists of the executive branch. The founders wanted Congress to be the executive branch’s boss, not its supplicant. The further subordination of Congress contributed to its crippling polarization and dysfunction. Think of it this way: As prone to abuse as earmarks were, bringing home benefits to your district was a means of justifying your work in Washington in a way that could cut across partisan or ideological lines. (“So-and-so is way too conservative for me, but he did get us that new firehouse.”) 

Instead of legislating or overseeing the executive branch, many House members spend their days as de facto pundits, spinning for their team or against the other. And why not? If all the real governing is being done elsewhere, spending your days as a cheerleader or critic on TV is good way to maintain your name ID for the next election.

So, you might think I was relieved to learn that earmarks are coming back. The Democrats brought them back to the House, and the Senate may soon be next. On Wednesday, House Republicans threw in the towel.

I think it’s the right decision in the abstract, but in reality it’s a little sickening.

Having just passed a $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief package, only a fraction of which deals directly with the pandemic, Democrats are moving on to an infrastructure bill. There’s no price tag yet, but Goldman Sachs estimates a range of $2 trillion to $4 trillion over 10 years. To build support for the effort, the chair of the House Appropriations Committee, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), announced last month that she’d allow earmarks, albeit with a few conditions. Members can’t have a financial interest in them, they can’t ask for earmarks in secret, and they can’t ask for more than 10. (That’s right, 10.)  

This put Republicans in a bind. If the money is getting spent anyway, why not have some say in how it’s spent?

“There’s a real concern about the administration directing where money goes,” House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said. “This doesn’t add one more dollar [to overall spending]. I think members here know what’s most important about what’s going on in their district, not Biden.”

McCarthy’s right. Still, ugh. Republicans banned earmarks because they claimed they contributed to runaway spending and debt. Spending and debt soared under Republicans and Democrats alike. And now, when these problems are the worst they’ve ever been, the GOP wants earmarks back—not as a way to get control of our fiscal problems, but as a way to take more ownership of our fiscal problems.

73
By
Comments (73)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Kurt Von Fuchs

    One of the things the pandemic showed was how fragile the bottom 30% are. I think they were things in the Covid relief package that will not directly related to Covid or directly related to helping the body and 30% which isn't a bad thing

    Collapse
  2. TragicMishap

    Why doesn't somebody check out the way most state governments handle this issue? Isn't that what federalism is supposed to do? Be the laboratory?

    Collapse
  3. Brad Beyenhof

    Is there a reason I didn't get this one emailed to me with my Dispatch subscription? I subscribe to The Dispatch and The G-File, but this article didn't show up in my email. I only found it when visiting the website. Several other Goldberg articles, like "The Election Was Secure. Why Rush Electoral Reform?" and "Is It Really Too Hard for Comedians to Joke About Joe Biden?" have suffered a similar fate.

    Collapse
  4. Tim Hollingsworth

    Pork provides the grease that lubricates the gears of our legislative system.

    I am much swayed by the argument that allocation of resources is better decided through transparent negotiations between elected representatives than soley through the executive bureaucracy. It may be ugly but it is how our system was designed to function. Corruption is much harder to hide in a legislative process than in an administrative office.

    This will be an especially important feature if the country actually does move forward with way overdue investments in infrastructure.

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Victor Clairmont

    Damned if you do and damned if you don’t.

    Great.

    Collapse
  6. Jake

    It is concerning that members are so excited about earmarks; however, earmarks are a double-edged sword. Earmarks allow members to exercise their power of the purse and direct appropriations to the projects. Members know what their districts need, and now have the ability to deliver for constituents. On the other side, egregious use of earmarks shed a light on the character of a member and allow constituents the ability to vote on that behavior. If a members constituents do not believe that a particular spending project is not necessary for the district, they can vote them out. As Jonah correctly pointed out, America’s long term fiscal issues are based in entitlement spending, not the building of an off ramp on I-95. Republicans mistakenly gave the Obama Administration the ability to direct spending in 2010, and have rightfully voted to take back the power of directed spending into their own hands.

    Collapse
  7. Deleted Comment

    This comment has been deleted

    1. Avatar photo
      Earl King

      Not to burst your ballon. There are 27 GOP governors. 23 States have Legislatures controlled by GOP. In Congress, in a year that Joe Biden won the Presidency GOP picked up seats in the House. I may be slightly wrong in the exact number but is something like 48,000 votes changed hands Trump would be President? Dems are currently poised to steal only one seat.
      GOP needs like 6 or 7 more seats to control the House. Generally the out of power party picks up seats in an off Presidential election year. You are pretending the GOP has become a small off shoot party. The facts do not say that. I get your antipathy towards the GOP. But you cannot draw facts from thin air. All the above is your opinion and not based on reality. You are holding on to a cartoonish version of the GOP. Time will tell but your presumption the GOP will never win another election is likely wrong. As always it depends on the candidates. I will say if the GOP runs Trump agains they will likely lose.

      Collapse
      1. Deleted Comment

        This comment has been deleted

  8. Avatar photo
    rlritt

    The issue isn't spending or income. The issue is there are too many people, most of whom are hard working, that cannot afford basic needs they require. You may say a person who can't afford surgery shouldn't get it, but we don't live in a 3rd world country where we're going to let people die from easily treatable injuries. You can say they too much money goes to schools and tell people their children will probably be less capable of getting by than you. Unfortunately the days when working class Americans can raise a family and save for old age and provide all the things considered necessary are gone. Most of these people live in states with small towns and moderate industry and do not earn enough. So the government has to intervene. Raising wages just sends businesses overseas.

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    CynthiaW

    "If the price of getting Congress to implement serious entitlement reforms was a gold-plated monorail in every congressional district, it would be well worth it."

    You're so funny, Jonah.

    Collapse
    1. Ingenero.lux

      https://youtu.be/taJ4MFCxiuo

      Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Phil H

    "It might be the right decision in the abstract, but in reality it’s a little sickening."

    It's only the "right decision" in the short term -- to get Congress to do its job. But that shouldn't take bringing home the pork via earmarks.

    Collapse
Load More