The return of earmarks to Capitol Hill spending means taxpayers could be on the hook for at least $6 billion in “community projects” for various districts.
Earmarks, spending for local projects in senators’ states, and House members’ districts, were banned for a decade after a series of corruption scandals related to the line items and amid broader criticism of politicians’ fleecing the federal treasury for political gain.
On the House side, a list of spending projects shows 221 Democrats and 106 Republicans requested earmarks. These must be approved by the Appropriations Committee, led by Rep. Rosa DeLauro, a Connecticut Democrat, with Rep. Kay Granger, a Texas Republican, the ranking member.
REPUBLICANS SPLIT ON EVE OF VOTE TO BRING BACK EARMARKS
Just under half of the House Republican Conference participated in earmark requests. Only one House Democrat, California Rep. Katie Porter, did not request any earmarks, as she supports the ban on them.
Funding requests from lawmakers for local projects in their districts ranged from $1 million for the Planned Parenthood Mar Monte Community Clinic Relocation and Renovation requested by California Rep. Zoe Lofgren, a Democrat, to $793,000 requested by Rep. Earl Blumenauer, an Oregon Democrat, for Portland Community College’s Artificial Intelligence Program & Curricula Development.
A congressional earmark is a measure inserted into discretionary spending appropriations legislation that directs funding to a project in a lawmaker’s district without requiring the funds be distributed through a merit-based system.
At the height of the tea party movement, after the GOP took back the House majority in 2011, Congress banned earmarks, but that provision sunset in January 2019, so lawmakers could begin to insert earmarks into fiscal 2020 funding bills.
Rep. Nydia Velazquez, a New York Democrat, asked for $750,000 for a social justice advocacy program supporting tenants’ rights known as “Communities Resist.”
Rep. Bennie Thompson, a Mississippi Democrat, requested $1.4 million for the Rural Hinds County Utilization Project. Thompson argued the purpose of the project for Townships of Bolton, Edwards, and Utica is for the “beautification” of those areas.
“A visually appealing community usually help increases property values, attracts businesses, and improves the overall image of neighborhoods,” he wrote in his request.
Rep. Ritchie Torres, a New York Democrat, asked for $1 million to replace the Sedgwick Library roof located in his district, while California Democrat Rep. Norma Torres (no relation) asked for $2 million for new water pipelines.
Rep. Nanette Barragan, a California Democrat, asked for $250,000 to expand the Michelle Obama library.
Republicans made requests of their own.
Rep. Fred Upton of Michigan asked for $900,000 for a community college to implement “safe, effective and cost-efficient models of distance learning.”
Rep. Beth Van Duyne of Texas requested $98 million for the Brute Force Electric Central Utility Plant, which is located at DFW Airport, while Rep. Don Young requested $18.6 million to rebuild the fire station in Kodiak, Alaska.
However, Senate Republicans amended their own conference rules in May 2019 to ban earmarks, despite House Republicans’ previous talks to reconsider the ban in late 2018 before backing off on the idea.
“Anything that’s that specific should be done by the state or local government. If a congressman is pushing it, it’s kind of, by definition, not a national concern,” Grover Norquist, president of the pro-tax reduction nonprofit organization Americans for Tax Reform, told the Washington Examiner.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Lawmakers’ requests amounted to projects that would ordinarily be funded by state or local taxpayer dollars as well as philanthropic donations from charities, Norquist noted, but their project requests ended up in the federal taxpayers’ laps instead.
“It shouldn’t be part of the federal budget. It should be part of the state or local budget. And by having an earmark for a local school, what that tells you is the local government for the last 50 years has decided not to do this. So, you’re working on things that are very low priority.”
