Toomey, McCaskill team up to ban earmarks permanently

Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images

A pair of bipartisan senators, tired of watching their colleagues get around their promise to stop using earmarks, are introducing legislation to stop congressmen from diverting federal funds for hand-picked local projects.

Leaders in Congress have enacted a temporary, unofficial moratorium on "earmarking," but money for local projects has nevertheless slipped into spending bills.

Sen. Pat Toomey, a Tea Party-backed Republican from Pennsylvania, and Sen. Claire McCaskill, a moderate Democrat from Missouri, today unveiled legislation to make the ban permanent under the letter of the law.

"We can't afford to waste money this way," Toomey said today. "We have staggering deficits, we have completely unsustainable debt."

Toomey pointed out that, over the course of 15 years, earmarking had nearly tripled, reaching nearly $32 billion by 2010. Clearly, $32 billion won't close the budget deficit, Toomey acknowledged. But "we've got to start somewhere, and this is a good place," he said.

"I would argue there is no better place to start," he continued, saying that earmarks were designed for the express purpose of circumventing the competitive bidding process that should be used when allocating taxpayer dollars.

Last year, the Senate rejected a proposed two-year ban on earmarking, but McCaskill said today that it would be difficult for lawmakers to vote against an earmarking ban now, given the current emphasis on deficit reduction and fiscal responsibility.

Voting against the bill she and Toomey are introducing, MsCaskill said, would be the "cherry on top of the dysfunction sundae" that is Congress.

The legislation would allow a lawmaker to challenge anything that looked like an earmark and would require a two-thirds vote of the Senate to get the challenged spending approved.

Lawmakers have gotten around the current earmark moratorium in part by arguing that the funding sliced off for local projects must still go through a competitive bidding process, the Washington Post reports.

For instance, when the House House Armed Services Committee drafted a Defense spending bill this year, committee Chairman Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif., set aside $1 billion for a special fund for member-directed projects -- projects that lawmakers said weren't promised to specific recipients.

McCaskill today referred to that $1 billion fund as a "slush fund," and Toomey called earmarks in general "currency to buy votes." Lawmakers can go to ribbon cuttings at local projects they've funded, he said, and tell voters and donors, "I'm the guy who brought you that big pile of money."

Some members of Congress argue that certain earmarks are legitimately helpful. For instance, the Post reported, Rep. Doris Matsui, D-Calif., this month requested earmarks for a flood-protection project in her district that she said has been publicly vetted.

"I think members of Congress know their districts pretty well and know what they need," Matsui said, according to the Post. "By banning [earmarks] entirely, we are giving all the power to the administration. I don't care if it's a Democrat or a Republican in the White House, they should not have that power."

McCaskill said today that Congress should also ramp up its oversight of the way the executive branch spends money. For instance, last week, McCaskill requested an investigation into a $433 million no-bid contract the Obama administration awarded to the maker of an experimental smallpox vaccine.

[ChrisPawelski]

This is foolish. They are ceding appropriation power to the Executive Branch. I am a farmer and an unpaid community activist who works on issues in my community and I can't tell you how dumb this is. First off, you are not saving any money, the money is already appropriated, you are only changing who will determine how it will be spent. Instead of a Congressional Office having that say it will now all be up to the Executive Branch. This will it make it much harder for citizens and communities to have a say, trust me.

Let me give you an example, you have a river that you want cleaned. Instead of going to your Congressional Rep. and your Senators who then will go to fight for the earmark to get the funding for the Army Corps to do the digging, which is much easier, your community will have to bid and compete against all sorts of other communities within the bureaucracy of the Dept. of Transportation or whatever Agency Army Corps is under, a faceless Agency that you and your community has no influence or pull with. Just one number amongst a sea of numbers, versus a Congressional Rep. and Senators fighting for your project.

Let me emphasize again, this is not about funding levels or spending amounts, this is only about WHO determines how the money is spent, so if you are happy with the Executive Branch Agency or the WHITE House having 100% of the power in deciding this, well then this is a good move. If not, this is dumb.

[tsigili]

Prove it to us. Pass it......and then we can cheer.

[slmom]

Anything worthy should get 2/3 votes (like new bridges, etc.) All the other fluff that can't stand on its own should be trashed. The Line Item Veto is a huge step to getting spending under control. If they can't defend it and get votes to override the veto, it dies. Having to take huge pieces of legislation or leave it to start the entire process over has wasted time and money.

[Progress4USA]

Yes...remember when they did this back in Jan...and then Jon Kyle turned right around and got himself a big fat $200M earmark for AZ.

[Liberty_in_MA]

So they will have to get this bill past Harry (let's put a new highway right through the desert I bought at a discount) Reid and the other corrupt self serving Democrats in the Senate?
Not likely. Claire has a tough race ahead of her so she has to look like she is doing something I guess.

[venusvegasvada]

Good. Do it. Pass the line item veto too while your at it, just to make sure.

[SandmanUSMC]

Good to see two smart brains (regardless of party affiliation) working together. We need more of this!!!!!!!!!!!

[twhiting9276]

FINALLY, someone gets it?
Doubtful it'll pass though.

[hbevis]

I have to agree, but it could come to be if enough people contact their people in Washington.

[cheeksforus]

A few good egg's are still there, the rest have all been cooked by lobbyist.

[2happy2ride]

Great idea! I'll press my congressman to sponsor the bill.