What's Wrong With a
Healthy Helping of Pork?
By SHERYL GAY
STOLBERG, NYTimes on the Web, May 31, 2006
WASHINGTON, May 29 -- BEFORE
"earmark" became a dirty word, Senator John W. Warner might have unabashedly
claimed credit for steering $1.5 billion in federal money back home to rebuild
the Wilson Bridge, which crosses the Potomac. But at the dedication
ceremony this month, Mr. Warner, Republican of Virginia, practically apologized.
"There's much said in Congress about building bridges to nowhere," the senator
said, invoking a bridge in rural Alaska that has become a symbol of federal
spending run amok. "This bridge is a bridge to everywhere, and it is worth
every penny."
Mr. Warner's remarks reflect a new reality in Washington, a city where pork has
for decades been the currency of power. Most members of Congress regard
bringing home the bacon as an important part of their jobs, not to mention an
essential ingredient for re-election.
But now earmarks — Washington lingo for the practice used by lawmakers to slip
money into legislation to pay for their pet projects — have been tainted by
scandal, and the public is decrying their effect on the federal deficit.
What's a self-respecting pork barreler to do? Fight back, of course.
After all, members of Congress have the constitutional duty to allocate federal
money. And if the appropriations process is a little Darwinian — every
state, Congressional district and city fighting for its firetrucks, parks and
bridges — what choice is there? No other branch of government, lawmakers
argue, is better suited to making those decisions.
"I thought this was my constitutional obligation, to make sure that we're
getting our fair share," said Representative Dave Weldon, a Florida Republican,
describing how he brought nearly $10 million to his district years ago to
rebuild an air traffic control tower at an airport in Vero Beach. "I
thought we were supposed to fight for the interests of our district."
A lot of other members thought that, too — and still do, even after being forced
to defend their spending last week. Representative Jeff Flake, Republican
of Arizona, challenged a string of projects in an attempt to strip them from
spending bills. The effort forced a collective look in the mirror, and a
whole lot of rationalization.
Not that this was a problem.
Most, if not all, earmarks survived, including $750 million for the Missouri
Forest Foundation ("A program that would utilize wood biomass to produce
energy," said Representative Jo Ann Emerson, Republican of Missouri) and $400
million to develop a research and environmental education center at the Mystic
Aquarium ("Not just moneys that are going for the purchase of fish food and to
clean the tanks," explained Representative Rob Simmons, Republican of
Connecticut).
The Founding Fathers probably did not envision taxpayer financing of projects
like the Missouri Forest Foundation or the Mystic Aquarium when they gave
Congress the power of the purse; the federal budget was far too scant back then.
But they did recognize that parochial interests would collide with the national
interest, and scholars say the instinct to steer money back home — sometimes at
the expense of the greater public good — is nearly as old as the Republic
itself.
"Congress is exerting power it has had since 1789," said Don Ritchie, the
associate historian of the Senate. "It's not doing anything new."
As the federal budget grew, there were more demands on it, and by the early
1800's, Henry Clay envisioned what he called "The American System," a nationwide
network of roads, rivers and bridges.
"You can see the shadows of earmarks in that earlier era," Mr. Ritchie said.
Clay, he said, correctly recognized that to get such a project passed, there
would have to be "a little something in it for everyone."
Today, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service estimates that earmarks
account for roughly 2.4 percent of the total $2.75 trillion federal budget.
But the use of earmarks has exploded since 1994, when Republicans, whose leaders
encouraged them as an aid to re-election, took control of the House.
That year, the research service reports, Congress approved 4,126 earmarks,
accounting for $23 billion in federal spending. By 2000, the figures had
jumped to 6,073 and $33 billion; in 2006, there were 13,012 earmarks, costing
taxpayers $67 billion.
But while earmark opponents like Mr. Flake have railed against them for driving
up the federal deficit, it took a corrupt politician, former Representative
Randy Cunningham, to give earmarks a really bad name. Last year, Mr.
Cunningham pleaded guilty to using earmarks to steer government business to a
defense contractor in exchange for $2.4 million in bribes, which he collected in
the form of a Rolls-Royce, antiques and a sweetheart real estate deal.
His conviction may be why Representative Deborah Pryce, Republican of Ohio,
complains about "unjustifiable embarrassing pork," while also arguing that her
own earmarks, like the $97 million she secured for a floodwall in West Columbus,
are perfectly reasonable.
"I think it's important for the federal government to have the input of
legislators who live in the districts," Ms. Pryce said. "I'm not sure the
Army Corps of Engineers would have made as strong a case for a floodwall in West
Columbus as I would have."
Indeed, earmark defenders say it is the job of Congress — not the bean-counters
at the Office of Management and Budget — to determine how tax dollars should be
spent.
"Excuse me," Mr. Weldon said, "but I don't think I was elected to come here and
just bow down to the White House and the O.M.B. when it comes to spending
priorities."
Earmark opponents counter that money gets allocated based not on need, but on
how much power a particular member of Congress wields. And Mr. Flake says
any special project can be justified on the grounds of economic development.
"If you accept the premise that we ought to be funding items like the Rock and
Roll Hall of Fame, then you can make a case that it ought to go through the
Congress rather than the executive branch," he said. "But if you don't
accept the premise, which I don't, then it's a red-herring argument."
Still, some view earmarks as the great equalizer. Senator Trent Lott, the
former Republican leader from Mississippi, is among them. "I come from one
of the two or three poorest states in the nation," Mr. Lott said. "How
could I possibly defend not trying to help people who have not been aggressive
in pursuing their fair share?"
So despite the earmark to-do, lawmakers this campaign season are still heralding
news of all the federal money they are bringing home. There is an old joke
in Washington: Pork is the money that goes to somebody else's district.
Or, as Representative Tom Davis, Republican of Virginia said, "One man's pork is
another man's steak."
|
