For those who may not remember: earmarking was the practice of specifying funding for a project in a bill, like for a bridge or a new road or hospital, etc. It was a way that legislators could direct projects, and thus federal dollars, right to their districts/constituents.
They’re in the news today:
So there it is: yea or nay? Are earmarks just a bad idea? Or are they a normal & necessary part of governance? Can they be implemented to avoid graft and corruption? Should they be?
I never thought earmarks were that big a deal, but I also don’t think that bringing them back is going to promote bipartisanship. The “bridge to nowhere” DID go somewhere — it would have served a community of Ted Stevens’ constituents. Earmarks were never more than a fraction of the federal budget, and they are dwarfed by give aways to corporations and other favored constituencies through the tax code and direct subsidies.
That said, bringing them back isn’t going to bring Republicans on board Democratic legislation in any significant way. Their time has passed — a reputation for “bringing home the bacon” just doesn’t matter as much as party affiliation. And Republicans will paint this as a Democratic money grab. It might help to pick off a Lisa Murkowski here or there, but her vote doesn’t matter when you need 60 in the Senate for any non-reconciliation legislation.
Correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t earmarks and bipartisanship die around the same time? I’m under the impression that once earmarks were taken away, Republicans became the Party of No. Bring back these little bribes and they might become the party of “as much as I still hate the Democrats, it’s good for my constituents so I’m going to hold my nose and vote for that money I wouldn’t otherwise get”.
Oh hell, no. They are graft and corruption in and of themselves. But that’s not a bug, it’s a feature.
Huh, I admit I’m surprised a majority of House Republicans agreed to go along with it. Maybe earmarks do still have some pull with voters. I’ll also be interested to see how the process works – if House Rs can get their earmarks in the bill and vote against it anyway it’ll be the best of both worlds for them.
I don’t agree that corruption and graft are an inevitable part of the process, though. It’s true that someone is going to get a contract to build something—but there are ways of making it less possible to do it corruptly. Transparency at the various stages of the process can be achieved; money can be followed.
And members of the press can and should be incentivized to follow that money—they are all looking for some way of grabbing audiences, now that the Former Guy is (mostly) gone.
\
eta: and anything that transfers power back from the Executive branch to the Legislative is important, even if it happens only in small increments. The Imperial Presidency MUST be brought under some kind of control.
I would think that such an occurrence would be the exact opposite. Teasing their constituents and then snatching the prize away at the last moment won’t win you any votes in this country. People vote with their wallets first, if they realize what the real issues are.
What I’m envisioning is that Republicans will get an earmark added to a bill and then vote against the overall bill, knowing that it will still pass. That way they get to take credit for getting the earmark added to the bill, and still bloviate about how they voted against wasteful government spending.
This used to happen sometimes back when earmarks were a thing, until leadership wised up and suddenly members who voted against passage found their earmarks had oddly disappeared from the final version of the bill.