Bi-Partisan Senate Earmark Reform
The Senate voted Tuesday to shine more light on thousands of expensive pet projects buried in legislation every year after the new Democratic majority bowed to a successful push by Republicans to make new disclosure rules even tougher than originally planned.
The vote was 98-0 to require senators to reveal the water projects, hiking trails, defense contracts or tax breaks for specific industries they insert in legislation. That unanimity came five days after Democrat leaders, holding a slim majority, were thwarted by a GOP-led rebellion, joined by many Democrats, in advancing a more comprehensive “earmark” reform.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who last week led opposition to the Republican approach, lauded the final product, saying it “combined the best ideas from both sides of the aisle.”
Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., the author of the amendment to the ethics bill, said the ability of the two sides to come together on the issue was “a good signal for the new Congress.”
It seems to me that this is steering the country in the right direction. I have read some criticism that these reforms merely expose the earmarks but do not actually stop them. In a ship of state as large as ours I am impressed by even small corrections. Now at least the blogoshere and other observers can participate in monitoring who benefits from public funds and expose abuses. Perhaps with enough bi-partisan cooperation like these we may gain enough momentum to make progress on other challenging issues.
15 Responses to “Bi-Partisan Senate Earmark Reform”
I don’t think there is much will to do anything more than make cosmetic changes in Congress. Earmarks, and the pork barrel generally, are how we get the re-election rate that we have. Every legislator makes sure to let his or her constituents know that, while they hate making you pay taxes, they managed to piece off X dollars for this or that local cause. If they didn’t, the conventional wisdom goes, they would not make it back to DC after the next election. In addition, some of that funding finds its way to the causes supported by local party chairs. In turn, those local party chairs pay the debt by getting the volunteers out there, supporting the legislators in their re-election bids. That’s how the system works and that’s why getting rid of earmarks is such a big deal. I know nothing about Alaska’s local politics, but I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that Ted Stevens’ Bridge-to-Nowhere was part of paying back big supporters who own companies that will be building that bridge.
Yea, I’ve been looking for news on this. While browsing some Rght Wing blogs for their take on the ‘first 100 hours’ they were ,of course, demeaning Polosi and Reid relentlessly. They announced this earmark reform bill D.O.A. blaming it more on Reid and his unscrupulous friends and relatives. So it actually passed 98-0. And the GOP then has the gaul to criticize the Dems. for coming out against Bush’s new Iraq plan before they give it a chance-after 3 1/2 years of the same. And we wait patiently for something to change!
[...] Paul Silver at the Moderate Voice sees an issue both sides are working on together: earmark reform. While it’s a small step forward, it IS a step. Personally, I’d like to see these pet projects taken out of real legislation and all lumped into bills themselves, perhaps a quarterly “Earmark Bill” or something like that. There’s no reason to be against pet projects out-of-hand, but there’s also no reason they have to be attached to serious bills. [...]
I don’t believe that all earmarks (or lobbying in general, or lobbying by spouses in particular) are sinister. Many may be appropriate investments on behalf of the US to improve infrastructure. My concern is abuse like you illustrate, such as special interest paybacks or trivial pandering like doll museums.
I am hopeful that earmarks will drop in number considerably with the exposure the new rules will require. Certainly any abuses can be more easily highlighted in the next election cycle.
BGO, yeah the Republicans being critical of any earmark reform, even a cosmetic one, is a bit hard to take. The conventional wisdom on this is wrong, candidates without earmarks did as well as candidates with earmark spending in the last election.
The Coffeespy
I agree that earmark might be handled differently like you suggest by putting them together into one bill.
Another idea is to give each congressperson an earmark budget based on population and only for specific uses. Then they can take responsibility for allocations.
Right now those with seniority on the appropriations committees tend to get more money for their districts which perpetuates their incumbency. It would be an improvement to level the playing field.
It’s good to see Republicans suddenly go all ethical and support reform. Of course that’s a lot easier to do when you find yourself in the minority, and no longer controlling the purse strings.
But it is a step forward, and if it helps shine light on the process and keeps the Dems (and Republicans) from repeating some of the excesses of the past, it can’t be bad.
Congress is subject to more scrutiny these days. If that makes them more accountable, it’s a good thing.
It would be nice if they would enact some legislation to govern congressional spouses and ex-staffers who work as lobbyists. Seems like such a conflict of interest to me. With all of the available occupations, why choose that one? Well, Duh- I guess the answer is an obvious one.
But I agree, even this small step is progress, and its nice to see Congress functioning again in a bipartisan mode.
Paul, you are quite right that not all earmarks are sinister, but you know that a lot of them are just pork and that is what needs our and Congress’s vigilence.
Kim,
I have been following the issue of excluding spouses from lobbying and my opinion is mixed. Some of them were lobbyists before they married a legislator. Or their clients may not be sinister. My preference at this time is a disclosure mechanism. If a trend appears of abuse then I would support tightening the reins.
Lobbying is not intrinsically crooked. Most of it is simple education. It is when it is asking for regulatory or financial favors that I get concerned.
My ultimate preference is public funding of election campaigns and a simplification of the tax code to eliminate the temptation to game the system.
Reid fought the tougher version tooth and nail, but wasn’t going to go on record against reform in a vote he couldn’t win. “Know when to fold ‘em.”
We will never get rid of earmarks, and some of them care indeed “good” spending, just as so many are not. Just give us the transparency, so those pushing them have to also defend them to the public, and not just to a committee chair or party leader.
Paul- I live in the DC area, and it seems like so much of the beltway gossip is about appearances of impropriety. Things that are seemingly innocent constantly get blown up out of proportion.
I would think that clear rules on lobbying spouses would help honest officials to avoid that kind of talk. But, I do agree that transparency helps with earmarks.
Tully-Nice try. The GOP had 12 years to pass legislation limiting earmarks. That it was passed under a Democratic majority won’t be forgotten by voters who well remember Boehner’s toothless ethics bill in the House.
The GOP Congress has been the biggest porker of all time, plus turning over the writing of legislation to K-Street lobbyists and turning “regulation” over to the regulated industries. What hypocrisy now that they can no longer pass their pork to suddenly be whining like they were the reformers all along. Crack me up some more, Tully.
It is not over until the fat lady sings.
The Ethics bill is being hung up in the Senate by Republican’s who want to attach a line item veto. It is not related to the bill but it intended to scuttle the ethics reform by adding a much more controversial measure. A deal was considered to separate out the line item veto part and vote on it separately there are objections from some Senate Leaders.
Legislation is messy, uncertain and not for the faint of heart.