Hurling invective at earmarks and deriding them all as wasteful "bridges to nowhere," is a popular theme these days. However, as Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has recently demonstrated, adopting a pox-on-all-earmarks position can quickly dissolve into a cafeteria-style earmark policy: "I like this earmark and this earmark, but not that one over there."

Yesterday, ThinkProgress noted that Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) plan to abolish earmarks from the federal budget would result in the elimination of U.S. funding assistance to Israel. McCain's presidential campaign responded to the finding by saying that, as president, McCain would "ensure America remains committed to the security of Israel, including maintaining America's assistance levels."

...

McCain has already made an exception for the $3 billion in foreign aid to Israel that is cited by the CRS. But he apparently is still willing to cut the rest of the earmarks in the CRS report. According to an analysis by Center for American Progress Senior Fellow Scott Lilly, that CRS report includes assistance to Egypt, Jordan, and Haiti as an earmark. Moreover, it includes funding for military family housing.

The fact is, there is nothing inherently nefarious about funding Congressperson-requested projects—some projects may be more useful, more appreciated, or otherwise "better" than others, but that a Congressperson has asked for it doesn't make it necessarily wasteful. And calling for an outright ban on earmarks will cut spending on programs that not everyone finds offensive - like the Iraq Study Group, for instance. This is not to say that the earmark process is not subject to abuses, however, but rather than prohibiting a particular spending mechanism, it makes more sense to bring the to the process a level scrutiny that will allow Congress and its constituents to debate the merits of these projects.

For the Hard of Ear-ing

No matter what you want to call it, an earmark is an earmark. If Congressional leaders don't believe that soft earmarks are earmarks, then I think that makes the case as to why we need tougher reforms in place. - Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), on pork-barrel spending

But, to be fair, Flake wasn't quoted here about pork-barrel spending. He was quoted about earmarks. If you're interested in the difference -- and if you writers and editors at the Times are listening -- have a look at this, esp. pp. 3-5.

On the one hand, the Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) Pig Book is a useful service providing a full accounting of earmarks adopted by Congress and stuck in the FY 2008 budget. Among the leading fun facts, the FY2008 budget includes :

• 11,610 earmark projects worth $17.2 billion
• 337% increase over the 2,658 projects in fiscal year 2007
• 30% increase over the $13.2 billion in fiscal year 2007

On the other hand it equates earmark spending with pork and that tars earmarks projects with too broad a brush. A close analysis -- and guess, what, we happen to have one right here! -- reveals a subtler story.

But don't judge the CAGW 2008 Pig Book by its cover...

In Gail Collins, the New York Times has a first-rate writer and thinker who brings a fresh perspective to her op-ed pieces and seems to approach issues without any ideological bent, axe to grind, or hobby horse to flog. Less of a luminary perhaps in that stable of regular columnists than a Kristol, Krugman, or Kristof but Collins has a secret weapon the others don't: humor.

Particularly commendable is last weekend's entry, George Speaks, Badly, a critique of President Bush's speech last Friday to the Economic Club of New York.

Now, this was supposed to be where the President goes into the heart of American capitalism to address the serious economic problems that -- that very same day -- would fell one of New York City's most venerable investment houses. The administration has done next to nothing since the talk of recession began about three months ago. The nation's capital and real estate markets had lost trillions of dollars of value. The spotlight was on him. So what did the President have to say?

A lot of folks are waiting to see what Congress intends to do. One thing that's certain that Congress will do is waste some of your money. So I've challenged members of Congress to cut the number of, cost of earmarks in half. I issued an executive order that directs federal agencies to ignore any future earmark that is not voted on by the Congress. In other words, Congress has got this habit of just sticking these deals into bills without a vote -- no transparency, no light of day, they just put them in. And by the way, this executive order extends beyond my presidency, so the next President gets to make a decision as to whether or not that executive order stays in effect.

As usual, Collins had les mots justes to say about Bush's remarks:

... this economic crisis has been going on for months, and all the president could come up with sounded as if it had been composed for a Rotary Club and then delivered by a guy who had never read it before.... Besides being incoherent, this is a perfect sign of an utterly phony speech. Earmarks are one of those easy-to-attack Congressional weaknesses, and in a perfect world, they would not exist. But they cost approximately two cents in the grand budgetary scheme of things. Saying you're going to fix the economy or balance the budget by cutting out earmarks is like saying you're going to end global warming by banning bathroom nightlights.

Lights out. Next?

Bill Allison over at the Sunlight Foundation has a great blog up about a report in Roll Call that the House Appropriations committee website was overwhelmed with requests for earmarks shortly before yesterday's deadline. Because the website crashed, the deadline has been extended until next week.

Bill makes the excellent point that instead of a one-year break for earmarking, only to return to the same system in 2009, why not just make the appropriations committee online submission system public, so people can judge for themselves the merits of the requests submitted by their representatives? Sounds like a great idea to me.

A bid by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) to ban the practice of earmarking for one year measure failed on a vote of 29-71. The amendment fell on a procedural vote after a point of order, which required 60 votes to waive, was raised against it because it was ruled "non-germane" to the budget resolution.

Presidential candidates John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama all voted in favor of the amendment. Other than Clinton and Obama, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) the only Democrat to support the measure. GOP Senator were split, 26-23.

The House GOP alternative budget resolution, which was defeated, also called for a moratorium on earmarks, removing them from the baseline spending totals for 2009.

CNN story.

The House and Senate successfully passed their versions of the FY 2009 budget resolution yesterday. The House passed their spending outline on a mostly party-line vote 212 - 207 and the Senate passed their version early this morning 51 - 44 (roll call not available yet). Sixteen Democrats in the House opposed the budget along with all Republicans and in the Senate, Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Susan Collins (R-ME) supported the budget, while Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) opposed it.

The House and Senate versions are similar in a number of areas, but the House blueprint is more fiscally responsible - strictly adhering to PAYGO rules by requiring offsets for mandatory spending increases and any additional tax cuts - particularly offsetting changes to the alternative minimum tax. Way to go House of Representatives!

There were tons of amendments in the Senate all through the day and night on key fiscal issues. We'll be dissecting the amendments and votes throughout the day today here on the BudgetBlog. Stay tuned!

Posted by Adam Hughes, 09:25:16 AM

Wednesday, March 12, 2008

In case it escaped your attention in perusing Craig's blog below, John McMaverick, the presumptive GOP nominee for president, lets slip a surprising sentiment:

... the facts are that I never showed any bias in any way against anybody — except for the taxpayer.

-- Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)

And, for bipartisan measure: ... the facts are that I never showed any bias in any way against anybody — except for the taxpayer.

.. I hope that senators of good will on both sides of the aisle will step forward and say, 'We have an obligation to our clients, um, to our constituents" [emph. added].

-- Sen. Maj. Leader Harry Reid (D-NV)

Friday, March 07, 2008

Thursday, March 06, 2008