The earmarks are dead, at least for this year. Lobbyists who promised a return on the fees they billed may be panicking, but organizations forced to pay the freight for specially designated projects are smiling in the privacy of their Washington offices.
Most of the 2007 earmarks disappeared when Republicans decided to leave nine of 11 funding bills for the new Democratic majority to deal with. Some said they hoping they would swamp the incoming leadership’s plans for a fast start during its first 100 days.
But the Democrats didn’t take the bait. Instead, they chose to hotwire the funding process, dumping the existing bills for a single new bill with rejiggered numbers.
“What they are going to do is go through … all of the domestic, executive branch agencies … on a case-by-case basis and see what the holes are and where the problems are in their budgets,” said Tom Gavin, spokesman for Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.V., the incoming chairman of the Senate Committee of Appropriations. The committees will do their “absolute best within a very austere framework to try and meet the many needs that face the county.”
The new bill is not written, but in the end, the total money is likely to be less. The group Federal Funds Information for States estimates that, under a continuing resolution, where current spending is shaved by a set percentage, total discretionary federal funding could drop from the roughly $176 billion proposed by this last Congress to $168 billion.
A continuing resolution is draconian, said Gavin, who emphasized that the process under way is not a one-size-fits-all approach.
Except for the earmarks. No case-by-case there.
“They go away,” said Gavin. All of them.
At least some of those receiving federal funds are looking forward to a year without earmarks.
“We are an organization that is not supportive of earmarking,” said BarryToiv, a spokesman for the Association of American Universities, a group of research universities. “While Congress needs to do its job as it sees fit, our view is that the best science is generally peer-reviewed science and we have concerns when earmarks take funding away from peer-reviewed science.”
Earmarks take away the decision making power, agreed Marcia Howard, FFIS executive director.
“The problem that we have with earmarks is that it imposes on states priorities that may or may not be their priorities,” she said.
Dee Ann Divis is the business editor of The Washington Examiner. Contact her at [email protected]
