Earmarks- Playing Congressional Whack-A-Mole

                      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/

Campaign Promises and the Budget Deficit- A Reality Check

                                    Robert A. Levine   3-13-12

Politicians running for office have promised constituents the moon from time immemorial, believing it’s necessary to get elected. If they’re victorious, they can decide later whether or not to follow through on the promises they’ve made.

At times, the pledges are so outlandish that neither the candidates nor the electorate have any expectations they will be fulfilled. In other instances, candidates deceive the voters into believing promises will be realized while having no intention of trying to get them accomplished. There are also promises to special interest groups to get their support, in spite of the fact they may be injurious to society in general.

The campaign promises currently being made by the Republican presidential candidates, regarding cutting the deficit and taxes, strain credibility. A recent report by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which is considered non-partisan, noted that all the budget plans put forth by the Republican candidates would raise federal government debt by 2021 compared to what would occur if the programs now in place remained unchanged. The tax cuts, that are an essential part of the Republican candidates’ policies, would substantially increase the debt despite any spending cuts that might be enacted.

Though Obama’s program would also raise government debt, the increase would be less than with any of the Republican proposals and less than on the present trajectory. Under Obama’s plan, federal dept would rise from 68% of GDP in 2011 to 74% in 2021. Romney’s program would increase the debt to 86% of GDP in 2021, Santorum’s to 104% of GDP and Gingrich’s to 114% of GDP. Ron Paul’s plan would produce the smallest increase in debt of any of the Republicans at 76% of GDP and would be closest to Obama’s proposal.

Are the “fiscal conservatives” no longer fiscally conservative? http://bit.ly/A0pDIi Republican candidates constantly attack Obama for increasing the deficit and national debt, even though their promised programs would be much less effective than what the president is currently proposing. Disregarding any adverse effects that might result, the candidates promise tax cuts because they know it will mobilize the Republican base and get them votes in the primaries and in the general election. But how often do you find candidates willing to take principled stands and “tell it like it is” to the electorate? Of course, if a candidate is honest and forthright, it does not mean voters will flock to his or her banner. Most citizens would rather fantasize and not hear bad news, even if it’s the truth.

An example of fantasy accepted as reality by the voters was Ronald Reagan’s advocacy of supply-side economics when running in the Republican primaries in 1980. His call for massive tax cuts and reduced government spending to stimulate the economy was derided as “voodoo economics” by his Republican rival George Bush, but Reagan was able to convince the public of his program’s validity, winning the nomination and the general election. Now, in attempt to reprise Reagan’s victory, Republican candidates are promising a similar strategy. Will the electorate swallow the same pablum again, or realize that sometimes the bitter medicine of tax increases (at least on the affluent) may be necessary? How do we get citizens to do a reality check on all campaign promises?

Resurrecting Democracy
www.robertlevinebooks.com