If the Narrative Fits...

The assumption is that member of Congress are self-interested, greedy, obsessed with reelection and usually corrupt. Earmark coverage fits within that narrative.  Cheese Factories on the Moon, page 104)

Pet peeve. Media coverage of politics--but especially earmarks--fails to provide sufficient context for readers more often than not.

When the facts "confirm" the narrative why bother with context?

Case in point: a story published last week by the Center for Responsive Politics.  Janie Boschma reports that former House Appropriations Committee member Steve Rothman will join a Newark law firm that lobbies on behalf of the defense industry.

Boschma employs the "revolving door" metaphor to highlight Rothman's behavior as particularly objectionable.

Rothman served on the Defense Subcommittee of Appropriations and Boschma treads the familiar link between campaign contributions and "legislative favors."

...the defense industry is one Rothman knows well. Among his top defense contributors during his 14-year House career were BAE Systems, $42,300; General Dynamics, $35,000; Lockheed Martin, $33,500; Boeing, $32,000; Honeywell International, $28,000; and Finmeccanica SpA, $24,000. Altogether, the defense sector donated $277,850 to Rothman during his tenure.

That is a lot of money. What the author does not tell you is this: $277,850 represents 2.4% of the campaign money that Rothman raised during his 14-year career in Congress.  A look at CRP's own database reveals that Rothman raised $684,950 from transportation and public sector unions over the same period, almost two-and-a-half times the money he raised from defense interests.

And then a turn to the dramatic, Boschma notes the

...remarkable nexus between budgetary earmarks by Rothman and 11 other members of the subcommittee and campaign contributions...In 2007, Rothman teamed up with Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-N.J.) to earmark $1.5 million in the 2008 budget for Frontier Performance Polymers to research lightweight packaging for military gear.

Once again, $1.5 million is a lot of money. But in 2008 Rothman, according to the CRP database, was able to earmark $13.6 million, mostly in the defense area. CRP could not link most of his earmarks to campaign contributions. Of the 19 earmarks they identify they link two to campaign contributions.

That is about 1 in 10. A "remarkable nexus;" really?

What does Frontier Performance Polymers do? It seeks to lessen the weight of military ammunition to save weight for purposes of transportation and lightening the load for members of the military in the field. One may or may not think that is a legitimate use of federal funds, but readers deserve to judge based on the facts, not the implicit assumption that Rothman and Frelinghuysen routinely flush taxpayer dollars down the drain.


I do not know Steve Rothman (or Rodney Frelinghuysen). I have never met him. I have never lived in New Jersey. I am not a lobbyist. I have never worked in the defense industry. I am just a lowly college professor on the West Coast. Maybe Rothman is guilty of some wrong-doing; I do not know.

It is not my purpose to defend Mr. Rothman or this earmark.

But I have some advice (source: Cheese Factories on the Moon) to offer to Ms. Boschma and other reporters when it comes to earmarks:

• Take the time to understand the process;
• Try to understand individual earmarks;
• Provide context;
• Do not overgeneralize, and;
• Be careful: Correlation does not equal causation.

--Sean Kelly

Roll Out the Barrel (We'll Have a Barrel of Funds)

More than a few commentators have weighed in recently suggesting that perhaps it is time to consider bringing back earmarks. Considering the legislative constipation that is gripping Congress it could not hurt.

Bloomberg Businessweek is the latest to float the idea that earmarks might provide some impetus for Congress: 

Political hacks used to say pork was the political grease that lubricated legislative deals. Only now do we see how true that was. Would it really be so terrible to reintroduce some congressionally sanctioned bribery? That would let members lay claim to the odd million in the interest of striking a deal worth much more.

We are loathe to think of ourselves as "hacks" (most of our contemporaries probably think we are), but the sentiment is sound.

The simple fact of the matter is this: The easiest vote to cast in Congress is NO. 

This is especially true when legislation does not contain the promise of something of import for a member of Congress and his or her constituents. 

If members of Congress can vote NO repeatedly and without consequence it should be no surprise that Congress fails to act on most all important issues.

A Case in Point

The Labor, Health and Human Services bill is perhaps the most difficult of the appropriations bills to pass. It contains funding for a variety of programs that are opposed by conservative Republicans, and contains provisions on hot-button social issues like abortion and stem cell research. Using earmarks and other forms of persuasion the Republican leadership was able to piece together a majority in support of the House version of the Fiscal Year 2006 Labor-H Appropriations bill. The House passed their version of the bill by a vote of 250 yeas to 151 nays; 206 Republicans and 44 Democrats voted for the bill while 10 Republicans, 140 Democrats, and 1 independent voted against the bill.

On the Senate side the bill was passed by a vote of 94-3, and the House and Senate met in conference to reconcile the differences between the two versions of the bill.  A decision was made in conference to remove $1 billion dollars in earmarks from the bill in favor of increased funding for the National Institutes of Health, and other initiatives favored by Senators Spectre (R-PA) and Harkin (D-IA), leaders of the Senate subcommittee.

When the bill returned to the House the Conference Report on the bill was defeated in the House 209 yeas to 224 nays. This time 22 Republicans voted with 201 Democrats (all voting Democrats) and 1 independent to reject the bill. In all, 85 members who had previously supported the bill in the House changed their votes when the bill returned to the House floor from Conference.  The one major difference between the original House version and the Conference version was the $1 billion dollars in earmarks that were removed from the Conference Report.  Stripping the earmarks upset the delicate balance necessary to pass a controversial bill.

In 2012 the House didn't even consider the FY 2013 LHHS bill on the floor-- the Appropriations Committee could not even vote out a bill out of committee.

It has been years since Congress passed all of the Appropriations bills following regular order. Republican House leaders have resorted to omnibus and "minibus" bills and continuing resolutions to fund government. 

Forget authorizing legislation. Congress is all but impotent.

Perhaps adding a little fiber to the diet might help? 

.

Earmarks Emerging from the Shadows

By almost any measure the 112th Congress was the least productive in several generations, perhaps in the history of the institution. According to a recent poll public approval of Congress is only 9%. Public Policy Polling "found that found is that Congress is less popular than cockroaches, traffic jams, and even Nickelback."

Wow. People would rather listen to Nickleback than watch Congress? That is pathetic.

These facts, combined with the beginning of the 113th Congress, have led several media outlets to look more closely at how Congress can improve its efficiency.

For some the answer is: Earmarks.

Over at Forbes, Rick Ungar links the failures of the last Congress to the decision to impose an earmark moratorium:

The moratorium on earmarks went into existence in February 2011. Since that time we have seen some of the greatest legislative fails in the history of the nation, highlighted by the debt ceiling fiasco of 2011, the inability to pass a jobs bill, an ever-increasing vacancy rate in the federal judiciary as one nominee after another is shelved and, of course, the current fiscal cliff clunker that might be the most embarrassing and damaging display of congressional incompetence of all.

NPR's All Things Considered ran a story asking "Could Reviving Earmarks Get Congress Going Again?" Quoting the ever-colorful former-Senator Alan Simpson highlights the fact that earmarks are a necessary component of the congressional process: 

 "[Lyndon Johnson] came up to Pop one time and said, 'Milward, what can I do for you? I need your vote ... surely you must have a dam or something out there you need in Wyoming,' " Simpson tells Jacki Lyden, host of weekends on All Things Considered. "I'm not talking about purity; I'm just talking about reality."

At Slate Matthew Iglesias points out that the fiscal cliff highlights the fact that earmarks help members of Congress make difficult decisions:

That’s not to say we should pine for a return to bribery and graft, but watching the prolonged fiscal cliff deadlock (and other Obama-era legislative battles) it was hard not to miss a little old-fashioned earmarking and pork.

We would be remiss (actually we would just be modest and who wants to be modest?) if we did not point out that we predicted from the beginning that the earmark moratorium would be damaging, and that we pointed out that the moratorium was an epic fail months ago.

Since the 113th Congress will also observe the earmark moratorium we predict continued dysfunction.

To be sure congressional dysfunction goes beyond the earmark moratorium (e.g., exceptionally high levels of ideological extremity and partisanship), but in the absence of the salve of earmarks there is little else to lessen the friction and allow Congress to do the people's work.

But at least people are talking openly about earmarks again, and that is a hopeful development.

Cheese Factories on The Inner Loop

The Inner Loop is a new internet radio program on VoiceAmerica. It features two long-time Washington insiders--Howard Marlowe and Michael Willis--who are serious about helping people to understand how "really works."

The episode for June 18, 2012 focuses on earmarks. The program features an all-star cast including a discussion of Cheese Factories on the Moon, former Appropriator Jim Walsh, and Steve Ellis from Taxpayers for Common Sense. Our segment begins at the five minute mark.

.

Things are heating up in the Cheese Factory

In his review for the Spring 2012 issue of the political science journal Congress and the Presidency (39:2, 219-221) Bruce Oppenheimer (Vanderbilt University), one of the giants of congressional studies, calls Cheese Factories on the Moon: Why Earmarks are Good for American Democracy "an easy-to-read, entertaining, and stimulating book...a heroic challenge to what is the nearly universally accepted wisdom about the evils of congressional earmarks...a valuable counterpoint to those who exaggerate and misconstrue the nature of earmarks."

Show Us the Money

Critics of earmarks frequently point to the presumed quid pro quo between earmarks and campaign contributions. They argue that members of Congress pursue earmarks in order to rake in campaign contributions from lobbyists who are scrambling to get earmarks for their clients.

If this is true then one would expect that members of the Appropriations Committees would be raising piles of cash. Membership on Appropriations should be the most valuable--or one of the most valuable--committee assignments a member could achieve from the perspective of campaign contributions.


This American Life is airing a program this week about money and politics. Part of the program focuses on this question: Which committees are most valuable in terms of campaign contributions? Lee Drutman, a Senior Fellow at the Sunlight Foundation (and fellow political scientist), crunched the numbers (covering multiple congresses and going back into the 1990s) for Planet Money.

Is an assignment to Appropriations number 1? No, that honor goes to Ways and Means. OK. Well that makes sense. Targeted tax provisions (tax earmarks) are worth a fortune--millions, even billions--to well-represented and well-financed corporations.

Surely Appropriations is number 2. No, that honor goes to the Financial Services Committee. Hmm. Well, OK. That makes sense, they write legislation that influences the bottom line of the financial services industry, the largest component of the American economy.

Well, you know, Appropriations is number 3, right? Sorry, that honor goes to the Energy and Commerce Committee. Again, this makes sense since the jurisdiction of the committee is the broadest in the House, covering everything from oil and gas to health care. Many, many corporations have legislative interests that fall within the purview of the committee.

Is it surprising that Appropriations is not in the top three; that it falls in the middle of the distribution? Not really. Critics of earmarks have been loud in their denunciations of earmarks, and shrewd in creating the quid pro quo narrative, but they have been (and are) wrong. They have diverted attention from the more important and less visible legislative activities in Congress that are infinitely more costly to American taxpayers.

In the meantime earmark foes have robbed our representatives of the ability to counterbalance the power of the executive branch to spend money by successfully hounding congressional leaders for an earmark moratorium. Furthermore, absent earmarks the legislative process has almost completely stalled. After draining the oil from the engine is anyone surprised when the engine seizes up during the cross-country trip?

With the legislative process stalled, and Congress pressured to pass authorizations and appropriations for infrastructure and water projects, it will become increasingly clear that earmarks are critical for Congress to fulfill its constitutional role.

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?

CHOICE Review of Cheese Factories

Scrolling through my (Sean) Facebook news feed this morning I was surprised to come upon CHOICE magazine's Top Review for the day: Cheese Factories on the Moon. The reviewer recommends Cheese Factories as

"...a worthwhile read for anyone interested in earmarks, the federal deficit, and the role of Congress and congressional spending decisions in the larger government/political picture."

CHOICE rates Cheese Factories "Highly Recommended." 

In the 'Battle of the Ricks' Earmarks Return as a Campaign Issue

A Rick Perry sponsored ad airing in Iowa attacks Rick Santorum for his record on appropriations earmarks. This conincides with an apparent Santorum surge in Iowa.

Perry highlights Santorum's vote in favor of the transportation funding bill that included the infamous "bridge to nowhere" project. Perry claims that Santorum was responsible for $1 billion in earmarks over his 16 year congressional career.

The Perry ad includes an audio clip of Santorum touting his earmarks: "I have had a lot of earmarks...In fact I'm very proud of all the earmarks I've put in bills."

By attacking Santorum for earmarking Perry is unearthing a tactic he used successfully against Kay Bailey Hutchinson in the Texas GOP Gubernatorial primary. During that campaign the Perry campaign produced a video/song based on ABBA's "Dancing Queen" titled "Earmark Queen" to criticize Hutchinson for her earmarks. (The lyrics are here; the video was quickly removed from the web due to potential copyright infringement).

Earmarks are a convenient device that can be used to highlight the "Washington insider" status of politicians like Hutchinson and Perry's current foe, Santorum. Perry and Santorum are competing for many of the same religious conservatives, and Perry would likely benefit from Santorum's defectors. Perry might decide to employ the same tactic against Michelle Bachman who also has appeal to religious conservatives and, like Santorum, can be tied to at least one specific earmark-like project. Bachmann's latest problems in Iowa may be enough to obviate an attack on her.

Earmarks are an easy device for governors to employ.  They do not have a direct hand in generating earmarks, allowing them to distance themselves from the projects, while benefiting from the results. Without a doubt Texas was a big winner in the earmark race. According to Taxpayers for Common Sense data for 2010 alone, Texas benefited from $1.9 billion in earmarks.

In a single year Rick Perry's state received almost twice the amount in earmarks that Rick Santorum generated in his entire 16 year congressional career. But, like Sarah Palin before him ("I said 'thanks but no thanks' to that bridge to nowhere"), Perry can claim that he opposes earmarks because his fingerprints are not directly associated with the earmarks, even though his state was clearly a beneficiary.

One can only wonder how much the "Texas Economic Miracle" benefited from the investment of federal dollars, including those that went to the state via earmarks.

That's an Earmark?!

In an desperate attempt to remain relevant in a world without earmarks Citizens Against Government Waste is releasing reports of "earmarks" in appropriations bills for FY 2012.

When the Republicans regained the majority in the House they reinstituted a ban on earmarks. The Democratically controlled Senate resisted, but eventually relented and adopted the same approach. Watchdog groups that raised money by getting people riled up over earmarks began getting nervous, no doubt; what would fuel their fundraising pleas?

It is a good thing that they define earmarks so broadly as to encompass any change in spending over the president's budget request. While CAGW lauds the Senate for reducing overall spending they accuse the Senate Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations Subcommittee including 16 earmarks in this year's bill. According to their release analyzing the Senate Labor-H bill:

The following are examples of pork added by the Senate to the Labor/HHS bill:

• $111,779,000 for programs to prevent substance abuse.
• $42,914,000 for the Teacher Quality Partnership program (TQP).  A March 2011 Government Accountability Office report that analyzed duplication within the federal government found that the TQP is one of 82 redundant teacher training programs.
• $14,918,000 for rural hospital flexibility grants.
• $6,990,000 for the Rural Community Facilities program.
• $998,000 for the Training for Realtime Writers program, which provides grants to institutions of higher education to create programs to train closed caption writers.

In another release they claim that the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development bill contains 7 earmarks, including increased spending on rail projects.

Imagine that: The Senate has the audacity to disagree with the president. You would think that the Senate thought of itself as equal to the president! How dare they.

We are being sarcastic, of course.

It is worth pointing out that prior to the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 the Congress--consistent with the US Constitution--had sole responsibility for constructing the federal budget. The Budget Act directed the executive to propose a budget but, since it is not a Constitutional Amendment, it did not rob the Congress of the "power of the purse," it did give the executive a handy tool for shaping the budget debate.

We oppose the earmark moratorium. We argue that the moratorium has achieved nothing.

These spending proposals are not earmarks. They are Congress asserting its Constitutional prerogative to have a hand in deciding the policy priorities of the country. We need to be careful. We may find one day that CAGW has defined Congress out of existence.

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.

Bi-Partisan Praise for Cheese Factories on the Moon

Cheese Factories on the Moon is a refreshingly candid book...I chuckled, nodded affirmatively, and in a few instances disagreed.  But it needed to be written...I will cite the book when I discuss the issue. --Representative Connie Morella (R-MD)

Praise for Cheese factories on the Moon

We received this via email over the weekend. We thought we'd share:
 
"I've just finished reading 'Cheese Factories on the Moon.' You and Scott Frisch have successfully married the benefits of academic expertise and political experience...you have added an untold and necessary chapter to the big story about congressional appropriations. Without reservation, this book should be required reading for every course on Congress; it also should be on the desk of every media analyst in the country."
 
Representative Glen Browder (D-AL)

Jeff Flake: Giant Killer

In 2008 arch-earmark-foe Representative Jeff Flake (R-AZ) initiated a full court press for his assignment to the Appropriations Committee. Supporters circulated an internet petition supporting his request. Despite a spirited fight, Flake was not assigned to the committee. He and his supporters attributed his failure to resistance from earmark defenders.

In the wake of the 2010 election, with the Republicans riding a wave of voter discontent fueled, in part, by disdain for earmarks, and with appropriators on their heels, Flake once again made a run at an appointment to the Appropriations Committee. Making his closing argument for an appointment in an Op-Ed in The Washington Post  Flake argued that earmarks were distracting the Appropriations Committee from its role as guardian of the Treasury:

Those who view earmarking as an expression of the "congressional prerogative" sell Congress short of its preeminent role as the first branch of government. As the defenders of earmarking are fond of saying, earmarks represent less than 2 percent of all federal spending. Precisely! By focusing on a measly 2 percent of spending, we have given up effective oversight on the remaining 98 percent.[1]

Flake argued that the committee, by focusing its efforts on earmarks, fails in the larger effort to closely scrutinize the more costly and more important expenditures. In the same Op-Ed he concluded that,

Without the earmark distraction, Congress can return to the deliberative process of authorization, appropriation and oversight, thus reining in spending abuses of the administration rather than simply piling on with spending abuses of our own.

 In an Appropriations Committee oversight hearing on Wednesday Flake attacked the National Endowment for the Arts for making grants worth a few hundred thousand dollars to a mime company in San Francisco and supporting an accordion festival.[2]

Those who supported Jeff Flake’s holy war on earmarks should be rolling their eyes, but we suspect they are not. Is this what Flake’s rebellion has become? Shifting the focus from a few silly-sounding earmarks to a few silly-sounding federal grants? Is this how Flake intended to wield the potent appropriations oversight power all along?

Or, perhaps Flake intends to go through the federal budget with a very, very, very, very fine-toothed comb.

The other irony here is the claim by earmark foes that expenditures determined through competitive, peer-reviewed, bureaucratic processes are superior to earmarks. The mimes and accordionists were funded using the competitive bureaucratic process boosted by earmark critics, yet they produced silly-sounding expenditures.

The fact is that many specific government expenditures, taken in isolation, sound silly. Case in point: recently the Department of Defense released a request for bids to repair a Koi Fish Pond at Travis Air Force Base in California. That sounds pretty silly to us.[3] And when silly sounding expenditures are brought to their attention, the media takes the bait every time.  But they miss the broader implications. In the debate over earmarks the media consistently reported on the silly-sounding earmarks; but they missed the larger debate about the congressional power of the purse and the ability of members of Congress to adapt broad federal programs to the needs of their states and districts. In this case the argument is not about a few silly-sounding grants, but whether the National Endowment for the Arts should continue to exist and receive funding. That is the argument on which the media should be reporting, and that is a debate that all Americans should have a voice in. 

Let’s be clear about the fiscal stakes.  Mr. Flake is focusing attention on a couple of grants that amount to a few hundred thousand dollars.  The total National Endowment for the Arts budget request for fiscal year 2012 is about $146 million, or less than one third of the amount this country spends on military bands in a year.[4]   Elimination of the entire National Endowment for the Arts would not make a dent in a deficit of $1,480,000,000,000. 

However, focusing the public’s attention on a few well chosen examples of “wasteful” spending will only contribute to creating the false impression that the budgetary imbalance is the result of wasteful spending and that balancing the federal budget can be easily accomplished. The public’s lack of understanding of the composition of the federal budget is well known, and it is easy to convince voters that silly spending is the root of our budgetary problems. 

Instead of focusing attention on the pittance we spend on mimes and accordion festivals, Mr. Flake might consider following Willie Sutton’s advice.  When asked why he robbed banks, Sutton famously replied “because that is where the money is.”  The money in the federal budget is in the Department of Defense, entitlement programs, and the flip side of earmarks, targeted tax breaks (known in Washington as tax expenditures).  If Mr. Flake truly cares about addressing our fiscal imbalance, he would be best to look to these programs instead of continuing to garner media attention by highlighting alleged waste in minuscule programs, the elimination of which will do nothing to solve the problem, but will only serve to promote anti-government feeling among an already cynical American public.  

             

[1] Jeff Flake, “An earmark fight Congress doesn't need,” November 12, 2010. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/11/AR2010111106060.html

[2] Erik Wasson, “GOP blasts NEA grants to 'Frisco mimes, accordion festival” May 11, 2011 http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/appropriations/160491-obama-arts-chief-grilled-at-house-appropriations-

[3] Repair Coy (sic) Fish Pond, Solicitation Number: F3ZT911081A002-PondRepair, Agency: Department of the Air Force, Office: Air Mobility Command, Location: 60th CONS https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=ec7591c232e932e108497c09c1e78b12&tab=core&_cview=1

[4] Walter Pincus. “Defense Department spends $500 million to strike up the bands” The Washington Post. September 6, 2010. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/06/AR2010090603018.html?sid=ST2010090603042

Earmarks for the ages…

Long lost records from the Senate Appropriations Committee, in a story on the blog Booktryst. The records, contained in bound volumes discovered by a Northern California rare book collector, cover the years 1870 through the early 1900s. According to Stephen Gertz:

The ledgers, written almost exclusively in pen - both black and red ink – with some entries and notations in pencil, enumerate the annual appropriations for:

I. Agriculture, Army, Fortifications, Pensions, Post-Office, 1870-1909.
II. Diplomatic, District of Columbia Appropriations.
III. Legislative Appropriations, 1870-1901.
IV. Military Academy, Naval Appropriations, 1870-1909.
V. Sundry Civil Appropriations, 1870-1901.

Even a quick glance at the few high quality photos of individual pages at the Booktryst site reveals that earmarks are not a recent phenomenon. If one accepts the typical definition of an earmark (an expenditure targeted for a specific purpose in a specific location) then each page of these ledgers is replete with earmarks. Take for instance the provision on this page (right) for the Navy Yard at Mare Island, California (that’s a pretty specific location!). Among the specific expenditures indicated is a cottage for the electrician, navy yard roads, and a shed over the galvanizing plant (those are some pretty specific projects!).

The moral of the story is that when money is appropriated it must be spent somewhere and it must be spent on something. From the beginning of the Republic Congress assumed its responsibility under Article I, section 9 of the constitution to appropriate funds. How did it accomplish this? By allocating geographic and project specific expenditures as is illustrated in these ledgers. Earmarks are not “new,” they are as old as the Republic and, practically speaking, necessary.

The “criminalization” of earmarks by groups like Taxpayers for Common Sense and the media seriously undermines what was historically a congressional power aimed at vesting the “power of the purse” in the institution most directly accountable to the people. Advocates of banning earmarks are at odds with our Republican principles and, as these documents illustrate, at odds with our history.

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 Robots and Earmarks (oh my!)

The Japanese earthquake and resulting tsunami devastated the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant two weeks ago. Lacking power to the cooling systems, concern about the integrity of the nuclear rods is in question. Repair crews dare not risk approaching the cooling ponds to assess the situation for fear of radiation exposure, while low levels of radiation are beginning to affect the region. Without extensive repairs the power plant could turn that part of Japan into a virtual wasteland.

Enter the robots. MSNBC reported Monday that Japan Ground Self Defense Forces requested robots from iRobot (Bedford, Massachusetts)—two each of the 510 PackBot and 710 Warrior models—to help survey the environment in and around the plant. These “battle tested” robots were developed to assist combat troops in Afghanistan and Iraq to assess suspected explosive devices and explore caves and other areas where enemy troops might be located. According to an NPR story “Once the robots get inside [the nuclear plant], they might use their cameras to inspect the condition of the containment vessels around the reactors or take samples to check the radiation levels.”

Last week we highlighted the role earmarks played in the National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program that helps to provide early warnings and disaster preparedness for the states of the Pacific West.

This week we point to another earmark-related irony of the Japanese disaster: The defense related iRobots that will be used in Japan were developed with the support of earmarks requested by members of the Massachusetts congressional delegation. According to public sources the company received $2,000,000 in 2008 alone to help develop the Warrior model that will now be used in Japan to help address the nuclear crisis.

Often maligned by reporters as “parochial” and characterized as “pet projects,” earmarks often result in technologies that help Americans and people around the world respond to difficult challenges. Another one of those programs the Pentagon “didn’t want” –like the Predator Drone—has become an important tool for addressing defense and non-defense-related challenges. Earmarks can provide an important countervailing force to the not-so-always-perfect judgment of executive branch experts who often dismiss nascent technologies.