Robert A. Levine 5-21-12
Congressional earmarks keep popping up no matter how much good government groups and
sympathetic members of Congress try to suppress them. And many of the politicians who rail against earmarks are the ones who find ways to use them, keeping the earmarks hidden by labeling them differently or burying them within legislation. But an earmark by any other name…
The majority of House members and Senators decry earmarks in public and give the impression they would like to eliminate them permanently. But it seems as if you can’t keep a good political payoff down. The placing of earmarks in legislation has continued in spite of the supposed moratorium on this activity enacted by Congress in 2011.
Currently, a favorite strategy of lawmakers is to use special funds in spending and authorization bills for projects in their districts or states. As an illustration, early this year the budget passed for the Army Corps of Engineers contained 26 different funds totaling $507 million for construction, maintenance and other projects that were not part of the original bill. It has been noted by budget watchdogs that the funds for these 26 projects were approximately the same as the earmarks in the
2010 budget. The nation’s budget deficits and the need to reduce spending did not act as a brake for the members of Congress, who added more money for the Corps than the president had requested.
According to Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW), the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) contained 111 earmarks. Of these, 59 utilized the exact language found in previous earmarks. A report from Senator Claire McCaskill’s office in December of 2011 found 115 earmarks in the NDAA. These cost taxpayers $834 million. Among those who requested the earmarks were twenty Congressional Republican freshmen who had campaigned against the practice. No surprise.
Further analysis by CAGW showed that 12 of 16 appropriation bills for FY 2012 that they had examined contained earmarks, with 251 projects totaling $9.6 billion. This is actually reduced since the moratorium went into effect, as earmarks in FY 2010 totaled $16.5 billion. However, transparency is now gone, with earmarks hidden within the text of legislation and not easily discerned. Earmarks previously were listed in a single table with the amount of the project, its location and with the names of those who requested the earmark attached to the request.
Unfortunately, past earmarks are still contributing to our budget deficits and wasting taxpayer money. An example is a drip pan for helicopters that attaches beneath the roofs to catch leaking transmission fluid. Congressman Harold Rogers, the current Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, aka the Prince of Pork, requested as an earmark in 2009 that these pans be manufactured by a Kentucky company, a major contributor to him and to Republican groups. The cost to the Army for these drip pans, awarded without competitive bidding, was $17,000 each, compared to a similar pan from another manufacturer that cost $2500. The Army has already spent $6.5 million on these devices with more to come.
The Earmark Elimination Act, co-sponsored by Republican Pat Toomeyand Democrat Claire McCaskill, last year was an attempt to permanently end all earmarks, but was defeated when it came before the Senate in February. However, it seems that no matter what legislation is enacted that tries to eliminate earmarks, members of Congress and Senators will find ways to circumvent the ban. Politicians want to pay back businesses that support them in order to generate more campaign funding, and they want to finance projects in their districts to garner more votes. Thus, whatever laws the House and Senate pass against earmarks, they will always have loopholes that allow legislators to continue the practice they appear to oppose.
Resurrecting Democracy
http://www.robertlevinebooks.com/
Congressional earmarks keep popping up no matter how much good government groups and
The majority of House members and Senators decry earmarks in public and give the impression they would like to eliminate them permanently. But it seems as if you can’t keep a good political payoff down. The placing of earmarks in legislation has continued in spite of the supposed moratorium on this activity enacted by Congress in 2011.
Currently, a favorite strategy of lawmakers is to use special funds in spending and authorization bills for projects in their districts or states. As an illustration, early this year the budget passed for the Army Corps of Engineers contained 26 different funds totaling $507 million for construction, maintenance and other projects that were not part of the original bill. It has been noted by budget watchdogs that the funds for these 26 projects were approximately the same as the earmarks in the
According to Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW), the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) contained 111 earmarks. Of these, 59 utilized the exact language found in previous earmarks. A report from Senator Claire McCaskill’s office in December of 2011 found 115 earmarks in the NDAA. These cost taxpayers $834 million. Among those who requested the earmarks were twenty Congressional Republican freshmen who had campaigned against the practice. No surprise.
Further analysis by CAGW showed that 12 of 16 appropriation bills for FY 2012 that they had examined contained earmarks, with 251 projects totaling $9.6 billion. This is actually reduced since the moratorium went into effect, as earmarks in FY 2010 totaled $16.5 billion. However, transparency is now gone, with earmarks hidden within the text of legislation and not easily discerned. Earmarks previously were listed in a single table with the amount of the project, its location and with the names of those who requested the earmark attached to the request.
Unfortunately, past earmarks are still contributing to our budget deficits and wasting taxpayer money. An example is a drip pan for helicopters that attaches beneath the roofs to catch leaking transmission fluid. Congressman Harold Rogers, the current Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, aka the Prince of Pork, requested as an earmark in 2009 that these pans be manufactured by a Kentucky company, a major contributor to him and to Republican groups. The cost to the Army for these drip pans, awarded without competitive bidding, was $17,000 each, compared to a similar pan from another manufacturer that cost $2500. The Army has already spent $6.5 million on these devices with more to come.
The Earmark Elimination Act, co-sponsored by Republican Pat Toomeyand Democrat Claire McCaskill, last year was an attempt to permanently end all earmarks, but was defeated when it came before the Senate in February. However, it seems that no matter what legislation is enacted that tries to eliminate earmarks, members of Congress and Senators will find ways to circumvent the ban. Politicians want to pay back businesses that support them in order to generate more campaign funding, and they want to finance projects in their districts to garner more votes. Thus, whatever laws the House and Senate pass against earmarks, they will always have loopholes that allow legislators to continue the practice they appear to oppose.
Resurrecting Democracy
http://www.robertlevinebooks.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment