That Earmarks Ban? Mostly For Show

Senate Minority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell.

/ AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta

There has been much harrumphing about earmarks in Congress this past week. House Republicans voted for a voluntary ban, saying in the new Congress they won't ask for any earmarks.

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, who directed almost a billion dollars in earmarks to his state of Kentucky in just the past two years, reversed course under pressure from new tea party conservatives and went from a staunch defender of earmarks to leading his party to ban them too.

President Obama praised the Republicans and said he also wants a total of ban of earmarks.

This is all being done in the name of slashing federal spending and cutting the federal debt. It won't do either.

Earmarks are specific directives in federal spending bills that send money to particular projects. If Congress passes a transportation bill to fund roads and bridges, most of the money is then distributed by the Transportation Department to where it is needed. Often blocks of money are given to state transportation agencies, which then allocate it to where they think it can be best used.

In an earmark, a member of Congress puts language in the bill that says money has to be spent on a certain road or a specific bridge to help their state or district. They have sometimes been extraordinarily wasteful, most famously Alaska's "Bridge to Nowhere" and an infamous $19 million project to study cow flatulence.

Those wasteful projects are an excellent reason to oppose earmarks. There is also a legitimate argument for them, which is that members of Congress who know the needs of their districts should have some say over where the money is spent rather than letting administration officials make all of those decisions. If members of Congress don't say which bridge they want built, a bureaucrat down the street will make that choice.

But much of the public debate has focused on reducing government spending and how getting rid of earmarks will save money. Republicans who announced their bans (which are voluntary and have some big loopholes) claimed this will help the balance the budget. In truth, it won't save a dime.

That's because the earmarks do not add money - they simply direct money that is already being spent. The $16 billion dollars in last year's federal budget for earmarks (less than 1 percent of the total budget) would not have been saved without the earmarks. The same amount of money would have been spent to build roads and bridges, fund defense projects and schools and all the other things the government does. The only difference is that the administration would decide the specifics of how the money was spent instead of members of Congress doing it.

The earmark debate is important and it certainly carries some potent symbolism, but if Congress wants to cut spending, this isn't going to do it.

---

Bob Fuss is CBS Radio News' Capitol Hill Correspondent. You can read more of his posts in Hotsheet here.

[jd2408]

The Congressional pork-barrel projects in the federal budget for 2010 was 9,129 projects at a cost of $16.5 billion in the 12 Appropriations Acts for fiscal 2010. This government waste has got to end.

Our Federal Government is now operating as individual states and not for the country as a whole. The Congressmen are continually running for office.

For the author of this article to say that ending pork does not save money is not a fair statement. Example: Your fridge stops working. You take the money to the store to buy a new one but you see the flat screen TV you have wanted, so you buy it instead. You now have a TV you could have lived without and a fridge that still doesn't work.

If our "Federal Government" can't do a better job of spending taxpayers money then divide it equally and send it to the states. Let them decide how important the museum is.

[Amusedbyitall]

This is laughable. What is an earmark? An earmark is placed on appropriation bills to spend revenues for a specific project. If Congress does not direct which projects would receive the funds, then the Executive Branch assigns the funds to specific projects. Banning earmarks is not going to reduce government spending, only limit which branch of government directs the funds.

"jd2408" is on the right track, but the wrong terminology. What the legislative process needs is a single purpose bills or unrelated riders. When Congress votes for appropriations for bridges and highways, it should ban amendments for museums and historic places. Worst offendersis military budgets that include money for parks, museums and other unrelated projects. The waste in government spending is more detectable if that waste can be found. Do not give presidents carte banche line item veto power, but demand that the president must veto any item in a bill that is not related to the purpose of the bill. This provides checks and balances. If Congress misses a rider unrelated to a bill, then the Executive Branch is obligated to remove the rider. We can't identify waste if we don't know where to find it. How can you finding spending on a thimble museum if its tucked away in a military appropriations bill?

[jd2408]

With our bridges and roads needing repair this is just some of the pork in the 2005 Transportation bill which had 4000 earmarks at 15 Billion. This shows why ending pork spending may at least put the money where it is needed. Here is just some of the waste :
**$15 million to purchase three ferries and establish a ferry system from Rockaway Peninsula to Manhattan, New York.
** $3 million to renovate and expand the National Packard Museum and adjacent historic Packard facilities in Warren, Ohio.
** Congress also tossed in $3 million to pay for a documentary film about Alaska. The subject is how Alaska is spending money on its highways.
** $1.6 million for a waterfront walkway honoring Frank Sinatra in his hometown of Hoboken, N.J.
** $100,000 for a traffic light in Canoga Park, Calif.
** $2.88 million to construct a bike/pedestrian path in Delta Ponds, Oregon
** $1.7 million to reconstruct Union Station in North Canaan, Connecticut for a transportation museum.
** $1.5 million to plan for ?The American Road,? at the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn, Michigan.
** $1.3 million to construct a recreational visitor center on the Mesabi Trail in Virginia, Minnesota, part of which will be used for bike and rollerblade rental.
** $580,000 to reconstruct a historic bridge crossing Maxwell Creek in Sodus, New York.
** $500,000 to establish a transportation museum on the Navy Pier in Chicago, Illinois.
** $300,000 for Yonkers, New York, to buy a trolley.
** $200,000 to construct a bicycle path in Petal, Mississippi
** $2.4 million on a Red River National Wildlife Refuge Visitor Center in Louisiana; and $1.2 million to install lighting and steps and to equip an interpretative facility at the Blue Ridge Music Center, to name a few.
*** This wasteful spending of money badly needed for repairs on our countries bridges and highways goes on and on. Just look it up. We need to put an end to this.

[liberalme]

The thing with earmarks is, the politician is PAID huge sums of money to get a specific project through--THIS is the money the politicians live off.
The politician doesn't give a rats azz if the earmark is garbage, the point is the money the politician is making aka political prostitution. The politician is "bought and paid for".

The politicians over the past 30 decades haven't given a thought to America or the occupants thereof, the "average" citizen doesn't have the resource to "buy" a politician.
They were all paid very well by allowing corporations to move production off shore--I remember when it started with the garnment industry in NY. To top it off, these politicians gave massive tax breaks to those same corporations (some pay nothing).

I am all for buycotts on foreign made products, but can't find much made here---look at your tags--sickening!!

[recoveringRepub]

So the Republicans and supporters are being SHAMED as it takes the control out of congress and gives it to the administration??? OBAMA. Why does the republican party want to do they are they IDIOTS? never mind I know that answer!

[msgbartlett]

You didnt quite tell the rest of the story Mr. Fuss, there is always another option. They can also lower the amount of appropriated funds by the amount that wont be earmarked and put that money back into government coffers to be spent to pay down the national debt. How stupid do you think we are? Are you telling us that the operating budget of the government cannot be cut? There is no stipulationg that says they have to spend all the money that we send to Washington in the form of taxes. Its called a balanced budget amendment which will strictly limit the amount of money the government has access to, in order to run the government each and every fiscal year. This process must be used to limit the amount of money lawmaker have access to so they will not feel obliged to earmark it for pet projects. And you call yourself a Captial Hill Correspondent. Shame on you.

[Lhyzz]

You have missed the point completely; if they are trying to cut costs, a ban on earmarks won't do a thing. It's a red herring, making ignorant people like you think that Congress is actually doing something.

Here's an easy way to cut spending by billions of dollars: pull troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan. These unnecessary and unsuccessful wars are costing us billions and trillions of dollars that could be spent paying down our debt.

But Republican'ts will never do that because then they'll look "weak on terror", right? ********.

[jd2408]

Lhyzz, The billions of dollars, over 15 billion in 2005, should be spent on repair and upkeep of our nations highways and bridges. This money is being wasted. Why do you think they often debate about putting a gas tax for infrastructure repair ? Because they waste so much money the transportation department doesn't have enough to do its job. It does matter and it does make a difference. Granted that even without the waste it may not be enough to fix everything but with years and years of waste it could have made a big difference. Roads and bridges crumbling are a danger to all citizens.

[forsanity1]

Wow, real information!

And where is all the "action" on this website now? Debating the book excepts from the former governor of Alaska.

I have a new vow. I will not comment on any article about her... I know that won't matter, but it is like not buying a thing "made in China" if I can possibly fine something made here! or elsewhere -- it's just one person taking a stand to make America stronger.

[velma179]

I am with you 100% on both points -- ignoring the former Governor and not buying made in China.

I am also totally FOR SANITY!

So there are two of us making the stand. WOW our numbers are growing ;-)

Take care, have a blessed day, you made my heart feel good.

[velma179]

Thank you for this article.

Our politicians tend to think we are not very smart and they can tell us anything, then do whatever they want. Well, I guess in a lot of cases we aren't and we let them...!

I expect comments that prove this and knowing many posters on this CBS site, I am sure to not be disappointed. Actually, I will be totally disappointed -- an informed electorate would give us a far better government, it is a REPRESENTATIVE Republic, after all.

[velma179]

See above.

msgbartlett completely missed the point.

Sheesh...