Republicans banned earmarks when they won the majority in the House of Representatives in 2010. Democrats are hinting they may bring them back. If they do, the Democrats will return to a shameful period of rampant corruption.
Earmarks are when individual congressmen stick a specific goodie into a larger spending bill, usually something of personal political benefit to themselves: a few million for their alma mater or subsidies for a local developer. The Pentagon might be directed (ordered) to buy a weapons system it does not want or need but is built in the district of the congressman.
Yes, it is often corruption in the rankest sense. Campaign dollars, or just cash, flow from the beneficiary of the gift of tax dollars (a person, company) to the generous congressman.
But that is just a few tens of billions misdirected.
Earmarks are the currency of corruption and big spending. Earmarks are given to buy the vote of a congressman who gags at overspending in a large appropriations bill, but can find it in his heart to forgive and endorse and vote for this waste if it includes a lovely gift for their district. Earmarks buy bad votes.
Earmarks are used to buy the votes of congressmen who would never vote for the overall package standing alone, without a bribe.
Earmarks are used to grease the wheels of big government, and they weaken Congress as an equal branch of government.
One Republican congressman told this writer that when he arrived in Washington, he was surprised to learn that every special interest in his district called expecting him to spend the bulk of his time fighting for earmarks for local politicians and local businessmen. It is hard to focus on limiting the total cost of government while directing half your staff to chase after and grab every loose contract and grant. If everyone is shoplifting, who is keeping an eye on the cash register?
If some earmark spending actually is of value to your state or congressional district, then it is properly the responsibility of the state or local government. Why didn’t they do it? By definition a locally targeted earmark pays for something that the city, town, and state have decided not to fund year after year. If it was valuable and important, the mayor or governor would have become beloved and re-elected by funding it. But they didn’t.
Washington pundits like to argue that in the “good old days” earmarks made it easier for “everyone” to “work together” in Washington. Yes, earmarks made it easier for “everyone” to “work together” in Washington if you define “everyone” as congressmen and special interests and define “work” as expanding the size, scope, and cost of government. Earmarks lead to the worst kind of bipartisanship — when the politicians come together to fight for their class interests against taxpayers, consumers, and average people. Earmarks bring politicians together, against us, in the same way they can “work together” when raising their pay, giving themselves gold-plated pensions, oppose term limits, and write campaign finance laws to protect incumbents.
Earmarks do help congressmen and senators find lucrative jobs once they leave office. Ever wonder why politicians are often appointed to run universities? It is not a result of academic excellence or managerial skills. You don’t learn anything about managing a huge university from bossing around interns in a congressional office. Check out the “great thinkers” who have left Congress to run various universities. Connect the dots on earmarks to that university and add in the potential of lobbying their former “colleagues” for more earmarks for that university. This is prepaying your pension with taxpayer money.
The incoming speaker of the house in 2011, following the Republican gain of 63 House seats in November 2010, was John Boehner of Ohio. He had never taken a single earmark. He led the fight to end earmarks in the House. Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., led the fight to end earmarks in the Senate.
Republicans brought the reform of term-limiting committee chairs that ended decades of despotic rule of chairmen who accumulated and abused power. Now they cycle out every six years. There are no more Rostenkowskis or Dingells.
Ending earmarks was a great step forward in reducing corruption.
Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., is bringing a Democrat majority to the House of Representatives. That will bring back a penchant for spending other people’s money.
We will soon see if she intends to bring back the corruption of earmarks as well.
Grover Norquist (@GroverNorquist) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. He is the president of Americans for Tax Reform.
