Earmarks....Congress' dirty little secrets?

A Congressional earmark as defined by Daniel Engber in Slate.com is “Any element of a spending bill that allocates money for a very specific thing-a given project, say, or location, or institution.” But an earmark is more than that. If that were it cut and dried, most would not see a problem with the whole idea of earmarks. How better to control an outflow of cash than to designate exactly where it is to go? The problem is the way earmarks are inserted to the bill in the first place.

Earmarks are not handled in an above-board manner. They are inserted to a bill after the debate is over by any member of Congress. In the past, members did not even have to put their names to an earmark, but looking at where the money goes would narrow the field considerably. Earmarks are generally sent back to a Congressman’s home state. A sort of pork barrel maneuver. According to Source Watch, most earmarks are added during the phase where House and Senate leaders meet to solve any remaining problems one or the other might have with the bill. Then, that bill must be approved by both houses. If anyone notices and wishes to remove the added specified funds, they have to vote against the entire bill, not just the recent addition. Even that is an oversimplified reason for allowing earmarks to stay. The old, “You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours” comes into play. By not stopping one Congressman’s personal funding of pet projects, others hope to get the same treatment in the future. This appears to be working as earmarking has been on the rise for the past 30 years.

Those receiving earmarks certainly aren’t complaining, but one has to wonder, if the funds offered are appropriate and above-board, why add them after debate? Shouldn’t these legitimate needs for funding be addressed as the bill is constructed? Shouldn’t negotiations happen in committees? It is the very nature of allowing this to be tacked on to a bill almost as an afterthought that makes the word “earmarking” leave a bad taste in the mouth. While the funds may be legitimately needed for specific projects, are they more worthy of funds than other projects that didn’t get that funding? Congress has a way to funnel funds into needed areas without resorting to sneaking those funds into a bill at the last minute. I personally don’t believe the reforms of the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2006 goes far enough.

While members of Congress do represent their individual states and are always looking for that re-election vote, their duty should be towards the greater good. We are more than just a hodge-podge of individual states willing to stab each other in the back to better our own individual status. We need to be looking out for the well-being of all. Congress, our elected officials, needs to watch out for the well-being of all. If funding for pet projects cannot be legitimately added during the committee phases of the bill, they should not be allowed to be added at all. After all, this is the United States of America.