The still-young House ban on earmarks faced a serious threat last week as Members considered potential rules changes for the upcoming 114th Congress. Ending the culture of earmarks was a long, drawn-out battle led for years by then-Representative Jeff Flake (R-AZ) who kept up the drumbeat on wasteful, unaccountable spending with his hilarious “Egregious Earmark of the Day” campaign. In 2010, reformers on and off the Hill achieved a ban on earmarks for for-profit companies. This was followed shortly by a blanket earmark ban in the 113th Congress.
This hard work was almost unraveled when Representative Mike Rogers (R-AL) submitted an amendment to the rules which would once again open the door for earmarks by creating an exception for “a State, locality (including county and city governments), or a public utility or other public entity.” Ostensibly, limiting new earmarks to public projects would help curb one of the worst aspects of earmarks: taxpayer funds going to favored private companies. However, the amendment was still extremely problematic.
Simply limiting new earmarks for public projects wouldn’t have avoid the earmark boondoggles of the past, like the famous $233 million “Bridge to Nowhere” which became emblematic of the waste and recklessness in Washington. A quick search in the OMB earmark database for “city” projects finds that many past earmarks were simply for things like historic building renovations or streetscape improvements – projects that might seem largely benign. However, these “state, locality, or public utility” projects would all be utilized and enjoyed by only a very specific population. There’s little reason a taxpayer in Utah should be shelling out for improved landscaping in Peoria. State, local and public utility projects are best funded by those who will be utilizing them on a regular basis, not out of the federal Treasury.
The era of earmarks incentivized bigger government, bigger budgets, and patronage. Instead of working for good governance, too many lawmakers simply hustled to “bring home the bacon” for their districts. With so many federal dollars going out the door for regional and local initiatives, any kind of accountability was hard to muster. Rather than debating a project on its merits, earmarking allowed tax dollars to flow out the door based on favoritism and connections. And while earmarks may have ultimately been only a small portion of the overall federal budget, they were a major symptom of much that was wrong in Washington.
Especially at a time of limited resources, legislators shouldn’t be working to undo fiscal restraint. Every dollar should be accounted for and steered toward key national priorities. Opening the door once-again to earmarks would have been a serious step backward.
That’s why taxpayers can breathe a sigh of relief knowing that Rep. Rogers’ ill-planned earmark amendment wasn’t adopted and the House will move into the 114th Congress with an earmark ban still firmly in place. Still, this close brush with what is hopefully a bygone era is an important reminder that taxpayers need to be vigilant going ahead. It’s clear that the taste of pork still lingers in some legislators’ mouths. In fact, even with an earmark ban in place the temptation has still been too much for some lawmakers who have worked to enact “backdoor” earmarks:
- Citizens Against Government Waste spotted an entire slush fund in a supposedly “earmark-free” bill that provided legislators a round-about way to secure pork for their districts.
- Taxpayers for Common Sense unearthed numerous “precursor” earmarks in the House’s 2015 Defense Authorization bill that could benefit specific businesses in legislators’ districts.
Taxpayers should applaud the House for sticking with their crucial earmark ban in the next Congress and not letting one bad apple spoil the whole barrel. This is an important first step in reining in wasteful spending and increasing accountability.