The Earmark Challenge
April 25, 2008 04:14 p.m. by Japhet Els
This community has been having a spirited debate about earmarks over in our Google Group. There are many hurdles when thinking how best to reform the practice of earmarks. The critic's are in agreement that its an abused system due to virtually no oversight and thus has become corrupted. McCain has said that he would be earmarks' "worst nightmare" by vetoing every bill that had an earmark attached. Now he's backing off the position after certain earmarks (that he would veto) were brought to his attention (U.S. aid to Israel and military housing to name a couple).
McCain's back and forth on the earmark issue is reflective of the complexity behind it. On one the hand, individuals and corporations take advantage of the process to gain federal support or business projects. On the other hand communities rely on the earmark process to receive federal funds for community development, transportation, and a multitude of other projects that benefit the community. The problem itself is bigger than any candidate for office. It's something we've relied on for more than 200 years and even our proudest leaders in history were benefiting from arguing on behalf of a young corporate America. I'm not surprised that McCain is spinning his wheels in the muck of the media after making such a swooping indictment of any and all earmarks. The issue is not one that can solved in a soundbite, although voters would like it to believe its all that simple.
There is no efficient manner in which Congress could actually approve every earmark, even in smaller groups. There are too many to number and the government would drown itself in votes around appropriations and grind to a halt. So, McCain's answer that he would "judge on the basis of need" doesn't stack up either. How would the White House efficiently oversee the thousands of projects submitted into budget bills without becoming the equivalent of your worst DMV nightmare? Part of the reason this has become such an efficient (but corrupted) process is because of how easy it is to stick in requests for federal funds in all budget bills without anyone raising a fuss or pointing a finger.
Change Congress is currently diving more deeply into the issue. Right now, we are advocating that candidates support the abolition of earmarks. This does not mean that all candidates who pledge would from this day forward vote against any bill with earmarks. It simply means that if a bill came before Congress pushing for the abolition of earmarks, those who took the pledge would support the bill. This includes options like the one-year moratorium plan that was presented by House republicans only a month ago.
That being said, we are also working to get a better sense of what other strategies are at play around the issue. Our goal is to get a more comprehensive picture of how to solve it by opening up communication with as many different organizations and people at once. We believe there has to be a way to fix the current system and we hope all of you will join in the conversation, pass along your own ideas or research that you've dug up.
Until then, we'll have to smile and chuckle with the candidates who are learning (like us) that fixing the corruptive influence of earmarks is not as easy as a soundbite.
McCain's back and forth on the earmark issue is reflective of the complexity behind it. On one the hand, individuals and corporations take advantage of the process to gain federal support or business projects. On the other hand communities rely on the earmark process to receive federal funds for community development, transportation, and a multitude of other projects that benefit the community. The problem itself is bigger than any candidate for office. It's something we've relied on for more than 200 years and even our proudest leaders in history were benefiting from arguing on behalf of a young corporate America. I'm not surprised that McCain is spinning his wheels in the muck of the media after making such a swooping indictment of any and all earmarks. The issue is not one that can solved in a soundbite, although voters would like it to believe its all that simple.
There is no efficient manner in which Congress could actually approve every earmark, even in smaller groups. There are too many to number and the government would drown itself in votes around appropriations and grind to a halt. So, McCain's answer that he would "judge on the basis of need" doesn't stack up either. How would the White House efficiently oversee the thousands of projects submitted into budget bills without becoming the equivalent of your worst DMV nightmare? Part of the reason this has become such an efficient (but corrupted) process is because of how easy it is to stick in requests for federal funds in all budget bills without anyone raising a fuss or pointing a finger.
Change Congress is currently diving more deeply into the issue. Right now, we are advocating that candidates support the abolition of earmarks. This does not mean that all candidates who pledge would from this day forward vote against any bill with earmarks. It simply means that if a bill came before Congress pushing for the abolition of earmarks, those who took the pledge would support the bill. This includes options like the one-year moratorium plan that was presented by House republicans only a month ago.
That being said, we are also working to get a better sense of what other strategies are at play around the issue. Our goal is to get a more comprehensive picture of how to solve it by opening up communication with as many different organizations and people at once. We believe there has to be a way to fix the current system and we hope all of you will join in the conversation, pass along your own ideas or research that you've dug up.
Until then, we'll have to smile and chuckle with the candidates who are learning (like us) that fixing the corruptive influence of earmarks is not as easy as a soundbite.
Comments (4)
Every congressperson has an earmark budget in proportion to population in their district. That budget may be a adjusted to the extent that other federal funds are invested there. This minimizes the advantage of incumbents and levels the playing field in elections.
Meanwhile the total amount and quantity of earmarks is significantly reduced.