John McCain, a staunch opponent of earmarks, asked a question of President Obama at February's Fiscal Responsibility Summit.
(Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP)Photos (1 of 1)
Pesky earmarks still in eye of budget storm
‘Member projects’ are a tiny part of the federal budget, but they’re a problem for Obama.
By Gail Russell Chaddock | Staff writer/ March 3, 2009 edition
Reporter Gail Chaddock talks with Pat Murphy of CSMonitor.com about earmarks and the omnibus spending bill before Congress.
Reporter Gail Chaddock
Rogelio V. Solis/AP
Sen. Thad Cochran is the top earmarker.
Washington
Member projects – aka earmarks or “pork” – account for less than 2 percent of spending in the $410 billion omnibus bill on the floor of the Senate this week, but they’re drawing most of the opposition fire.
The bill, which will fund government for the balance of the 2009 fiscal year, includes 8,570 earmarks worth $7.7 billion, according to a new report by Taxpayers for Common Sense in Washington.
“I just went through a campaign where both candidates promised change in Washington; promised change from the wasteful, disgraceful, corrupting practice of earmark, pork-barrel spending,” said Sen. John McCain in a stem-winder on the floor of the Senate on Monday.
“We have former members of Congress residing in federal prisons. Not only is this business as usual, but this is an outrageous insult to the American people,” said the Arizona Republican.
At issue is more than just the dollar amount of spending, critics say. The time and effort to secure earmarks for 1 or 2 percent of government spending take up time that members could better spend on the hard work of overseeing the other 98 percent-plus. Moreover, the success of some groups in securing earmarks encourages others to spend scarce public dollars to pay to lobby Washington.
“Members say it’s a little thing that they do, but it really gets taxpayers angry,” says Tom Schatz, president of Citizens Against Government Waste, which produces an annual “Pig Book” identifying member projects in spending bills.
“I think that people recognize that it’s inherently unfair and disproportionate in how these earmarks get allocated – mostly to members of the appropriations committees,” he says.
Some critics see this issue as a rallying cry for a battered Republican Party to win back the House and Senate, but they’ve got a problem: Republicans are nearly as successful in bringing home the bacon for their constituents as Democrats – and in no mood to change the practice. GOP senators account for six of the top 10 sponsors of earmarks, according to the Taxpayers for Common Sense.
Few issues in public life lend themselves so well to attack ads, especially in hard economic times. Here’s the formula: Pick a silly-sounding earmark – or give one a great name, such as “Bridge to Nowhere” – then remind voters that while they struggle, members of Congress are wasting money or (worse) angling for bribes.
“I ask the senator from Hawaii [Sen. Daniel Inouye (D), who chairs the Appropriations Committee]: Why do we need to spend $2 million to promote astronomy in Hawaii when unemployment is going up and the stock market is tanking? Do we really need to continue this wasteful process?” McCain asked his colleague.
McCain, the longest-serving earmark opponent in the Senate, also noted: $1.7 million in the bill for pig odor research in Iowa; $6.6 million for termite research in New Orleans; $2.1 million for the Center for Grape Genetics in New York; $1.7 million for a honeybee factory in Weslaco, Texas; $143,000 for an online encyclopedia in Nevada; $150,000 for a rodeo museum in South Dakota; $238,000 for the Alaska PTA, and $333,000 for a school sidewalk in Franklin, Texas.
“Now, maybe that Franklin, Texas, school needs a sidewalk. Maybe other places need a sidewalk, too,” he said.
The issue is a tough one for the Obama White House. The president campaigned to drop earmarks back to their 1994 level – the year before Republicans took control of the House and the practice of earmarking soared.
The president barred earmarks from last month’s $787 billion stimulus package, but advisers say the fiscal year 2009 omnibus bill, including earmarks, is old business.
“This is last year’s business. We just want to move on. Let’s get this bill done, get it into law and move forward,” said Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag on ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday. The president will sign the bill, despite earmarks, he said.
In a sign of how controversial the practice has become, the Senate Appropriations panel last week removed the name of then-Senator Obama from sponsorship of a $7.7 million earmark for vocational training for native Americans in the omnibus bill. The inclusion of Obama on the list had been a mistake, said John Bray, deputy communications director for the committee.
At the time Obama requested the funds, the request did not identify particular recipients – a defining feature of earmarks.
“It identified a set of criteria and awarded funding to any eligible entity,” he said in a statement. “The record will be corrected to reflect these facts.”
In a briefing on Monday, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said the president will soon “outline a process of dealing with this problem in a different way.”
“The rules of the road going forward for those many appropriations bills that will go through Congress and come to his desk will be done differently,” he said.
As a US senator, Obama cosponsored an amendment with Sen. Jim DeMint (R) of South Carolina to back a one-year moratorium on earmarks in the 2009 fiscal year spending cycle.
“President Obama has a chance to take one of the biggest steps toward real earmark reform in years,” Senator DeMint wrote in his blog on Monday.
Senators have traditionally been the most avid supporters of earmarking, which they see as a congressional prerogative. Led by longtime appropriator Sen. Robert Byrd (D) of West Virginia, senators make the case that the executive branch should not have the only say in where federal dollars are spent, since the Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse.
Budget analysts say the issue has been blown all out of proportion to the importance of earmarking in the federal budget.
“It’s closer to a drop in the bucket, but because politicians devote so much time to it – and the media does – it’s become a laugh line on late night television,” says Maya MacGuineas, president of the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget in Washington.
“I’d much rather have people focus on entitlement reform. Until we do, the American public will discredit the [budget] process,” she says.
Comments
2. Thomas F. McGraw | 03.03.09
Gentlemen:
I believe the projects referred to as “earmarks,” are in many cases valid needs of a community, state, or the nation. However, unless they will directly and economically create long-term jobs, I don’t think they belong in any stimulus package. All $7B or so should be cut from the stimulus package and allowed to find their own competitive level in regular annual appropriations. Further, I believe that creation of highway construction jobs and the like doesn’t help much either, since those job are finite, and do not necessarily lead to continuing business and thus, permanent employment. We shouldn’t be be “giving a fish,” so a provider can feed his family today, but rather, we should be giving him a fishing pole and teach him how to use it for feeding his family in the long term future.
3. hsr0601 | 03.03.09
The hard-earned stimulus package is founded on the pledge over the policy of transparency, no earmarks through line by line review, which is the most effective way to turn deficit into surplus, moreover, to fight the vested interests, the top priority need to be fight against the same old failed earmarks, I think.
Mr.Obama should not give in to the temptation to play by the establishment’s rules. He’s obligated to push hard for change; that’s what voters elected him to do.
4. Shannon | 03.03.09
Madison- Pardon me, did you say that Senator Thad Cochran’s earmarks were ‘ONLY 75 million dollars’? Would you care to rethink the ‘only’ in that sentence?
5. fappin | 03.03.09
Obama inherited this bill. He doesn’t have time to battle Congress right now over the 2% that some people think has been unfairly added to it. Next year, it will be different.
Fewer Republicans = fewer earmarks.
6. Tabatha | 03.03.09
Pigs stink. End of project. I would like my 1.7 million dollars now. How ridiculous can you get? Our country is on the way to a depression and they want to continue to waste money.
7. Michael | 03.03.09
As the article says, these are just 2 percent of the bill. Too bad McLame could not offer up some outrage when his party was ransacking the country under his buddy Bush. This is just a way to keep him in the spotlight and divert attention from the GOP’s failings. He needs to retire, his last campaign showed what a phony he is.
9. Garth | 03.03.09
Too bad the line-item veto was destroyed. That could help curb this earmark spending.
10. hadenufyet | 03.03.09
Although earmarks are only 2% or 7.7b (wow thats a ton of money)of the federal budget, what % do you reckon it is of say the budget of medicare, or some other piece of the budget that needs more money so that real progress can be made? Add 7.7b to just about anyones budget, including unemployment benefits, healthcare etc. and you will be making a real impact. The unfortunate part of using percentages to describe money is that it denigrates the amount of real dollars involved as after all it just sounds so small……This practice is just another extension of the good ol boy network that is stifling this country and the sooner it stops the better we will collectively be. A better solution would be to cut the tax rates so that the money can stay in the states to begin with where they can spend it on real needs, not those that their Representatives to Congress have been paid to deliver instead of being shipped off to Washington for them to dole out to us as beggars.
I paraphrase:”democratic capitalism will survive only so long as it takes for people to realize they are being bribed with their own money.”
Straighten up Washington, we are all ashamed of you.
11. D MOORE | 03.03.09
I would have no objections to congress passing earmarks or any other pork barrel funding provided that they: 1. pass taxing legislation to pay for it including any cost overruns, and use a budget prepared by the (COB I believe it’s the Congressional Office of the Budget but, not sure, apologies if I have the wrong name) 2. Pass sunset legislation along with the bill so it has to come up for a vote each year unless it’s a one time expense. 3. no earmark or amendment spending should ever be funded out of general revenue period.. 4. All appropriation bills passed by congress,(especially earmarks and amendments), should be able to stand on their own and if they can’t then they shouldn’t be passed.
It is time for congress to own up to it’s complicity in the mess we currently find ourselves do to irresponsible oversight by our elected leaders who are too busy enjoying government paid junkets and the favors of various lobbyists who seek to gain by offering bribes in all but name to congressmen/woman and who often also write the very same bills they are advocating. Add to it the fact that much of the spending in the general budget is not accounted for in the federal budget(IE Social Security surplus is used to finace the deficit but not accounted as part of the deficit). The deficits run up by the government over the past 40 years is totally fictious and not even close to reality yet congress continues to cruise along as if they are serious about being fiscally responsible when everyone knows congress is just another name for wasteful spending who’s primary purpose is to bleed the middle income taxpayer.
12. curly | 03.03.09
The budget and stimulus bill was anything but clear, in fact it was not even debated. As far as being bipartisan it was bipartisan only if the republicans accepted what the democrats wrote including all of their pet projects.
13. Who Won | 03.03.09
We are in an economic crisis, this is the time to stop all earmarks. This had been standard practice and it needs to stop. These are pet projects and at a time when the nation is trying to get by, stay on a budget, not lose their house or job it is totally inappropriate. Obama campaigned on government reform, it appears to have been another politicians lie.
14. Reddfaced | 03.03.09
How can politicians expect the people to be responsible spenders with the kind of bad example Congress sets? Congress is living well beyond its means, but they are doing it with the tax dollars of responsible citizens.
15. the cap | 03.03.09
One man’s vital project is another man’s earmark - especially if it does not benefit the complainer’s State or District.
16. Joe Burney | 03.03.09
Come on, folks. This is America, and President Obama, despite his rhetoric of being a reformer is clearly a big-spender with a very long, classic Democratic party agenda. He not only does not have time to deal with the small, petty earmarks, he is busy “earmarking” health care and other pet causes at the billion dollar level–why mess with the million dollar stuff? President Obama a reformer? Give me a break!!
17. Stephen | 03.03.09
hadenufyet:
Let me correct that:
Democratic capitalism will survive *only if* people realize they are being bribed with their own money.
If we don’t make this realization, then we’ll continue voting for people who take $20 form our pocket and give “generously” give us back $15 to get our vote. Unfortunately, the only disagreement between the two major parties is who they want to take the money from and who they want to give it to. This forced diversion of productive resources to unproductive resources is the hallmark our socialism, and if we don’t come to our senses, the likely outcome is that few of us survive…
Oh - and technically, this isn’t our money. It’s usually funded with 30 year bonds, which our kids will have to pay it off while soak up the rest of their income with our entitlement checks. We will only have to pay the interest - kinda like a loan I was offered a year or so back…
18. CWO3 USN RETIRED | 03.03.09
TO Frappin Hoiw can you say that President Obama inherited this bill as it was just passed by the House and Senate. When is the man going to keep his campaign promises, no lobbists, hight ethics ie no tax cheats, no earmarks? Of course I understand they are only campaign promises made to pander to the people he wants to vote for him. I don’t expect him to keep any of the promises and am think that he doesn’t care what we the people of the United States of America care. How soon before it becomes the United Socialist States of America?
19. Homunculis | 03.04.09
Earmarks are fair and legitimate. How else are the smaller states going to be represented. All the money would go to the larger states or those constituencies from the ruling party. This is a fair and balanced way to meet the needs from the minority party or smaller states.
20. brokevoter | 03.04.09
“Obama inherited this bill. He doesn’t have time to battle Congress right now over the 2% that some people think has been unfairly added to it. Next year, it will be different.”
Democrats had already delayed this bill for many months. That is the only reason it is “inherited”.. Democrats did not want to sign off on anything done in the last months of the Bush presidency.. in case the new Prez wanted to make changes.
So now, Obama says that he doesn’t have TIME to remove nearly EIGHT BILLION DOLLARS of our wasted tax money?
Sure, it will be different next year.. he will double that amount of pork, just as he just Doubled our National Debt.
This is NOT some old bill that he had to accept. It would have been very easy for him to “Just Say No” and tell Congress to delete the pork or he would veto the bill. In fact, he ran on a platform promising to do just that.
21. clarification | 03.04.09
Without debating the subject of earmarks, I would point out that the sidewalk in Franklin, Texas runs from the town itself to the school. Most of it is not on the school or the City’s property, but on the State’s right-of-way. Its purpose is to keep children from having to walk on the highway to get to the middle school. Much of the cost is attributable to the State’s construction requirements. If Senator McCain and his supporters prefer that our kids walk in the highway or believe such a project should be scrapped in favor of lower taxes, I’m glad that they have that right to criticize it. Our system of government and personal freedoms make America the greatest country in the world. We should try to remember that fact when we engage in uninformed finger-pointing and name-calling rather than civil debate.
22. Michael | 03.04.09
I think the real issue is the corruption behind the allocation of earmarks. Politicians are “induced”, one way or the other (wink-wink), to distribute pork to the privileged few. I don’t know about you, but I vote for my representative to provide good government, not cozy up to corrupt lobbyists. Every minute a Senator or Representative spends with a lobbyist is time taken away from doing their job.
Earmarks should be stopped.
23. Howard_T | 03.04.09
Perhaps the $1.7M for pig odor research would be better spent trying to teach pigs how to sing. This has the same effect as trying to stop wasteful spending by politicians whose only goal is to get re-elected. In other words, it won’t work, and it annoys the pigs.
24. Tony | 03.04.09
To “clarification”, post number 21. You said “Most of it is not on the school or the City’s property, but on the State’s right-of-way.”
So, when did this become the Federal Government’s responsibility? If it is like you say, then it is the STATE’S responsibility to put in the sidewalk, not the Federal Government’s. It is not the intent of McCain or anyone else to put children at risk, but I just can’t see why a State’s project should come out of the National budget.
25. Gary | 03.04.09
Our Representatives should be ashamed of themeselves adding their personal projects to this bill. Is there anybody in Congress who acts in the best interest of the American people rather than promoting their own careers? Obama should veto this bill and make Congress write a bill free of earmarks as promised in his speeches. This bill is being enacted under his watch so he is responsible for this too.
26. DUNOTS | 03.04.09
@24
Well, the fact of the matter is that States have received federal funds for an extremely long time. This is nothing new. If you take umbrage with federal funding to states, your complaint runs far, far deeper than earmarks.
27. D MOORE | 03.04.09
I would have no objections to congress passing earmarks or any other pork barrel funding provided that they: 1. pass taxing legislation to pay for it including any cost overruns, and use a budget prepared by the (CBO I believe it’s the Congressional Budget Office but, not sure, apologies if I have the wrong name) 2. Pass sunset legislation along with the bill so it has to come up for a vote each year unless it’s a one time expense. 3. no earmark or amendment spending should ever be funded out of general revenue period.. 4. All appropriation bills passed by congress,(especially earmarks and amendments), should be able to stand on their own as a group instead of being added to bills such as education or defense, etc., and if they can’t then they shouldn’t be passed.
It is time for congress to own up to it’s complicity in the mess we currently find ourselves do to irresponsible oversight by our elected leaders who are too busy enjoying government paid junkets and the favors of various lobbyists who seek to gain by offering bribes in all but name to congressmen/woman and who often also write the very same bills they are advocating. Add to it the fact that much of the spending in the general budget is not accounted for in the federal budget(IE Social Security surplus is used to finace the deficit but not accounted as part of the deficit). The deficits run up by the government over the past 40 years is totally fictious and not even close to reality yet congress continues to cruise along as if they are serious about being fiscally responsible when everyone knows congress is just another name for wasteful spending who’s primary purpose is to bleed the middle income taxpayer and pander to lobbyists.
28. John Kendrick Wilson | 03.05.09
We are told that Numbers under 2% are Unimportant.
Yet, the same folks tell us that a number of .036% is ALL IMPORTANT and must be lowered.
29. nrs | 03.05.09
I have a simple solution to this issue. Why not have a line item that states that 2% of the bill will be for Special Projects. But every member of the Congress should apply for it. The application will be evaluated bu a special panel just like NIH grants or NSF grants. There will be no lobbying and it takes a lot of time to file the application, trust me. In no time, this silly issue will melt away. Remember, for each item requested, the application process should involve justification and significance.
Another alternative is that distribute the 2% to every member equally (2% divided by 537 members!).
Equal chance, less time spent o the floor no lobbyists and the world will be wonderful!
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
4. bottom up change » Blog Archive » Memo to Obama: It’s Time to Take On Democrats Over Pork | 03.04.09
6. Twitter Trackbacks for Pesky earmarks still in eye of budget storm | csmonitor.com [csmonitor.com] on Topsy.com | 08.25.09
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. Madison | 03.03.09
Actually Sen Robert Byrd was the top earmark individual. Sen Thad Cochran’s earmarks were joined by other Senators. So whereas Mississippi received the most money from earmarks, the largest individual earmark Senator was Sen. Byrd with 125 million in earmarks. Sen. Cochrans individual earmarks were only around 75million.