Political Misdirection

Just before the Iowa Caucuses, with Rick Santorum surging in the polls, Rick Perry went on the attack criticizing Santorum's record on earmarks. Now neck-and-neck with Santorum in South Carolina, the Romney campaign has torn a page from the Perry playbook.

Romney has enlisted long-time earmark critic John McCain to likewise attack Santorum on earmarks. Invoking the names of South Carolina's two Senators McCain noted "I think [earmarks are] wrong for America and so does Sen. [Jim] DeMint and so does Sen. Lindsey Graham who have been staunch fighters against earmark and pork barrel spending." (The use of Graham's name is dubious given Graham's support for earmarks and his very public feud with DeMint over an earmark for the port at Charleston.)

Conjuring up one of his well-worn claims McCain argued on the campaign trail yesterday that "...earmark spending is the gateway to corruption...Sen. Santorum and I have a strong disagreement, a strong disagreement that he believes that earmark and pork barrel projects were good for America."

Misdirection takes advantage of the cognitive limits of the human mind. Typically we can only focus on one thing at a time. Misdirection works by focusing our attention on one thing, something likely to grab our attention, while a more meaningful objective is achieved unnoticed by the spectator. 

Political misdirection uses the same principle; distract the public with an issue of dubious policy importance like earmarks while achieving larger policy goals. While the public is frothing over earmarks much more costly tax loopholes are woven into the tax code for the benefit of favored constituencies (with the added benefit of then decrying the tax code as too complicated and filled with loopholes).

An example came to our attention by way of an NPR story that aired this morning.

A recent study University of Kansas professors Raquel Alexander, Stephen Mazza, and Susan Scholz examines the "return on investment" of lobbying expenditures on the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004. The AJCA created an amnesty for U.S. corporations with foreign earnings that were held off shore. Corporations could "repatriate" those funds at a substantial tax discount (15% on earnings compared to the 35% tax rate on the earnings). 

Alexander, Mazza, and Scholz estimate that companies spent about $288 million lobbying for the AJCA reaping tax savings of $62.5 billion; that is, for every $1 a corporation invested in lobbying on AJCA their average return on investment was $220.

This single tax loophole in 2004 cost about four times all of the earmark expenditures for that same year. A quick search of The New York Times for 2004 reveals almost 100 stories about earmarks and "pork barrel projects" and only one story about the $62.5 billion American Jobs Creation Act.

We are not suggesting that lobbying is corrupt. We are not suggesting that the AJCA was bad policy. We are not suggesting that the members of Congress who supported the AJCA were corrupt. 

What we are suggesting is that earmark critics like McCain create a tempest surrounding earmarks while more fundamental and costly issues get little or no attention. Likewise, when it comes to the Republican Presidential nomination what stories about Romney are being ignored while the electorate and the media are distracted with earmarks?

Epic Fail: The Earmark Moratorium Solved Nothing

During the 2010 election season criticism of earmarks reached a fever pitch. Candidates running on the political right declared that earmarks were the source of most of our evils.

Arch earmark opponent Senator Tom Coburn cast earmarks as a "gateway" to big spending. Following the 2010 elections Senator John McCain, a long time foe of earmarks, said that “The time has come for Congress to put a stop to the corrupt practice of earmarking once and for all.”

Critics of earmarks argued that eliminating earmarks would be a step toward balancing the budget and restoring confidence in American political institutions. As it turns out eliminating earmarks has achieved neither objective.

According to a new Gallup poll  “Americans now estimate that the federal government wastes 51 cents on the dollar, a new high since Gallup first began asking the question in 1979.” This is the first time since Gallup began asking this question back in the late-1970s that the estimated percentage of waste exceeded 50%.

So the budget deficit remains despite the moratorium on earmarks. And people are now convinced that government wastes more money than they thought when earmarks were included in appropriations bills. Nice work.

We have long argued that the earmark hysteria was concocted to promote the political fortunes of certain politicians, and increase contributions to "watchdog groups." On numerous occasions we have argued that the brouhaha surrounding earmarks was mostly about generating soundbites. This blog and our book Cheese Factories on the Moon are aimed at promoting a full understanding of earmarks.

Now comes a news release from watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense in which they finally admit that the bluster about earmarks was more about generating public ire than promoting serious budget savings. In a recent release the organization says, “... congressional earmarks were $15.9 billion in fiscal year 2010 -- less than half of 1 percent of the budget. Good sound bites don't always equal big savings.”

This political donnybrook over earmarks would be unremarkable but for one fact: The elimination of earmarks is bad for American democracy.

• In the absence of earmarks the Congress cedes considerable power over spending to the executive branch. This is contrary to American constitutional design and strengthens the hand of congressional Republicans' arch foe Barack Obama. 

• The moratorium robs the ability of members of Congress to adapt national programs to address the unique problems and concerns of their constituents. It is left to the bureaucrats in the executive branch to prioritize spending.

• In the absence of earmarks Congress is unable to substitute its own judgement for that of the executive branch. We have pointed out here how projects like the Predator Drone, the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center, and other projects were pushed by Congress before they were adopted as good ideas by the executive branch.

• In the coming months members of Congress will need to make painful decisions about future  government spending. In the past earmarks served as the "spoonful of sugar" that helped soothe these bitter choices. In our system, which relies on compromise, earmarks made compromise easier to swallow. Congressional leaders no longer have this tool at their disposal. The earmark moratorium makes finding common ground much more difficult.

A strong Congress was a critical component of the Founders' institutional design. Granting the Congress the "power of the purse" was a conscious decision meant to bolster the power of Congress and promote the interests of the people through their elected representatives.

The current moratorium has not delivered on its promises and is harmful to the Congress-centered nature of American democracy. As the kids say these days: Epic Fail.

Oh the irony...

Predator Drone: A flying earmark

On April 21st President Obama authorized the use of the Predator Drone to aid NATO forces in their efforts in Libya. The pilotless drone is controlled remotely. The Predator and has proven useful in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan; it has become a weapon of choice for the US Military. According to Vice Chair of the Joint Chiefs General James Cartwright:

What [Predators] will bring that is unique to the conflict is their ability to get down lower, therefore to be able to get better visibility on targets that have started to dig themselves into defensive positions…They are uniquely suited for urban areas. [link to full story]

Today media outlets are reporting that John McCain is in Libya. According to the Voice of America McCain’s visit is aimed at gaining recognition of the Libyan rebels, and encouraging the U.S. to take a larger role in the conflict. McCain is quoted saying:

I came here to get an on the ground assessment of the situation….We are meeting with the [rebel transitional] council, we’re meeting with the military, we’re meeting with lots of people. The [rebel fighters] are my heroes.

By authorizing the use of Predators in the Libyan conflict Obama has, at least partially, granted McCain’s wish that the US provide more support for the rebels. Obama’s decision also made McCain’s trip possible by ensuring that the Senator is free from danger during his visit to Benghazi.

The irony is that the Predator Drone began its life as an earmark, the kind of congressionally directed appropriation against which Senator McCain has led a holy war. McCain often challenged fellow Senators’ earmarks on the Senate floor. In fact, his antipathy toward earmarks was a centerpiece of his presidential campaign.

Oh the irony: John McCain being protected in Libya by the robotic love-child of an earmark.

Tsunamis and Earmarks

The Tsunami Warning Center in Hawaii

The massive earthquake in Japan and the resulting tsunami activity in the Pacific reminds those who live in coastal communities of the sudden, awesome, and deadly power of nature. Tsunamis in 1946, 1960, and 1964 killed hundreds of Americans in coastal states; a large earthquake in 1992 off of California’s coast caused concern that tsunamis might make the West Coast vulnerable to even larger, more destructive, and more deadly tsunami events.

In 1994 Congress directed the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to lead an inter-agency effort to promote tsunami awareness and preparedness effort. The effort joined the U.S. Geological Survey and the Federal Emergency Management Administration with the state emergency management agencies in Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington. In 1997, as a result of the initial leadership of Senator Mark Hatfield (R-OR) (the by-then-retired Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee) on the issue, an initial earmark of $2.3 million established the National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program (NTHMP).

Predictably, anti-earmark crusader Senator John McCain (R-AZ) took to the Senate floor in July 1997 to “object strenuously” to the inclusion of, denounce, among other projects included in an appropriations bill, including the earmark for the National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program. McCain specifically objected to “$2.3 million to reduce tsunami risks to residents and visitors in Oregon, Washington, California, Hawaii, and Alaska.”[1]

A coastal community overwhelmed, 2004

In 2004 more than 200,000 people were killed by the Indian Ocean Tsunami. The specter of a similar disaster occurring in the U.S. pushed the Bush Administration to support the Tsunami Warning and Education Act of 2006. In effect the Act endorsed and built upon the foundation laid by the NTHMP through a series of earmarks over the course of a decade. In the absence of the extensive interagency and state-federal partnerships forged by the earmark-supported NTHMP the U.S. would have been caught flatfooted by the recent tsunami. Instead coastal communities on the West Coast awoke to tsunami warnings and at-risk communities were evacuated preventing serious casualties.

Tsunami damage in Hawaii, 2011

As with the Predator Drone, the Human Genome Project, mine resistant vehicles, and many other projects first championed by Congress, executive branch actors in Washington, DC resisted Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Project. For years the project was supported through earmarks promoted by Senators Inouye (D-HI) and Stevens (R-AK) who were seeking to be responsive to the real dangers facing their constituents. In the end the seemingly narrow interests of members of Congress (often derided for their perceived profligacy by the media and “watchdog” groups) produced a program of national importance.

The executive branch is not the sole repository of all good ideas. Members of Congress are uniquely suited to identify issues of import to the communities they represent. It is unlikely that a bureaucrat sitting behind a desk in Washington, DC will spend much time thinking about tsunami dangers to coastal communities a continent away. The American system of representation positions of members of Congress to press the federal government to respond to local and regional issues and concerns. The recent moratorium on earmarks undermines the ability of members to be responsive to these concerns and, perhaps, the ability of our system to generate innovative approaches to pressing national problems.

[1] Congressional Record, July 24, 1997, S8076.

Far be it from us to defend John McCain, but...

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