Far be it from us to defend John McCain (R-AZ). In our book Cheese Factories on the Moon: Why Earmarks are Good for American Democracy we characterize earmark opponents like McCain as ranging from naïve to disingenuous. McCain repeatedly claimed throughout the presidential campaign, and continues to claim, that he has never requested an earmark. We have documentary evidence that demonstrates that he did request earmarks before he experienced a political rebirth in the wake of the Keating Five scandal. His claim is simply not supported by the evidence.[1]
 |
| This document illustrates that John McCain supported a pair of earmarks included in an Interior Appropriations bill. |
As a foe of government spending McCain was a vocal critic of President Obama’s stimulus bill. He like many other Republicans characterized it as wasteful spending. Recent revelations in the investigation by the Center for Public Integrity turned up evidence that John McCain lent at least tacit support for a transportation project promoted by the city of Phoenix in his home state. Specifically he offered “conditional support” for funding to “accelerate the extension of the PHX Sky Train” at the Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport.[2]
McCain’s behavior with regard to stimulus funding has been described as hypocritical. We object to that characterization of McCain’s behavior, and the behavior of others who sought stimulus funding for their states and districts.
Former Republican Senator Phil Gramm of Texas uttered the words that inspired the title of our book. He said:
As I am fond of saying, if the Congress had a vote on whether to build a cheese factory on the Moon, I would oppose it based on what I know now, and I cannot imagine the circumstance under which I would support it. But on the other hand, if Congress in its lack of wisdom decided to start a cheese factory on the Moon, I would want a Texas firm to do the engineering, I would want a Texas construction firm to do the construction, I would want the milk to come from Texas cows, and I would want the celestial distribution center to be in Dallas, Texas, or College Station, Texas, or somewhere else in my State.[3]
In short, a member of Congress faced with what he or she considers bad policy has the responsibility to oppose that policy. But once approved he or she has an equal responsibility to pursue the interests of their constituents, which includes pursuing funding for projects that will bring benefits to their states or districts.[4]
The story surrounding attempts by members of Congress to influence the expenditure of stimulus funds is a classic example of “gotcha politics.” The stories trumpet the “hypocrisy” of politicians while ignoring the larger significance of the story: Earmarks allow members of Congress to target spending to projects promoted by their constituents and they allow their constituents to pass judgment on the member and his or her earmarks. Instead by passing an earmark free bill spending decisions were pushed into the dark recesses of the bureaucracy. Back-channel politics—members of Congress attempting to influence bureaucratic decision making—on the other hand is very difficult to identify and bring into the light, and bureaucrats lack democratic accountability. In short, earmarks are good for democracy.
[1] For instance in a letter to Robert Byrd dated June 29, 1987 (Right) he defends over a million dollars in earmarks in the Interior spending bill for two wildlife areas in Arizona saying “they have outstanding wildlife value including being home to several endangered species.”
[2] Ashley Parker “For McCain, Stimulus Money Questions” http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/for-mccain-stimulus-money-questions/ accessed October 19, 2010.
[3] Adam Meyerson, "The Genius of Ordinary People," Interview with Sen. Phil Gramm, Heritage Foundation Policy Review 50 (Fall 1989): 11-12.
[4] See a previous essay by us: “Why Cheese Factories on the Moon?” http://cheesefactoriesonthemoon.blogspot.com/2010_06_01_archive.html accessed October 19, 2010
