Earmark Reform 101

We must convince our U.S. Senators and U.S. Representatives to represent the people, and not just the special interest groups and those making the biggest campaign contributions.  

Several things need to change.  It is absolutely essential that earmarks be totally eliminated.   Campaign spending reform is also needed to put candidates on a level playing field, unlike today when the candidate with the largest campaign war chest is guaranteed victory.  Term limits may also need to be set to eliminate the career politician that will do anything to stay in office. 

Earmarks were called “pork barrel spending” when I was young.  If I remember my high school civics class correctly, pork barrel spending was described as one way politicians rewarded their constituents and supporters.  I like the term “pork barrel spending” or “pork”, but saying “earmarks” does sound less dishonest.   

Earmarks are the primary way politicians payoff and reward the special interests, corporations and individuals that funded and/or endorsed their campaign.  We must recognize that the people and organizations expect, and get a substantial return on their investment in a politician’s campaign.  Earmarks are also used to “buy” the votes of congressional colleagues to pass bad legislation.  Earmarks must be made illegal, and violations vigorously prosecuted. 

I have heard people say earmarks make up so small a part of the total budget that they are irrelevant.  Senator Obama requested $740 million in earmarks.  He averaged over one million dollars per day in earmarks while active as a Senator.  If every Senator did the same, it would add up to one hundred million dollars a day in earmarks.  I don’t call that irrelevant.  That is just the Senate.  Now add the 435 Representatives in the House.  Senator Obama was rewarded for his pork barrel spending by being elected President. 

The most common argument I hear politicians give to defend earmarks is that it is the only way states get federal money to fund state projects.  If this argument has any validity, we should elect the most corrupt politicians we can find in the hope that they will reward the state they represent as well as lining their own pockets and filling their campaign war chests.  I have a big problem with this philosophy.

Politicians must be held accountable.  The public is not aware of most earmarks that are attached to bills.  Most politicians don’t even bother to hide or explain these unethical activities.  When they are confronted about the earmarks, they just laugh it off or say everyone does it, or should be doing the same thing for their state. 

I would recommend the following:

·        Earmarks must be made illegal.  Every bill for federal funding must be voted on individually on its own merits.  If a bill for a state project does not justify Federal funding it should be funded by the state. 

·        Federal budgets need to include funding for the states.  The federal funding to states will be divided between the Senate and the House of Representatives by some formula.  Dividing federal funding for the states equally between the Senate and the House of Representatives will make adjustments for states with differing state populations and land mass.

·        The funding for the states given to the Senate will be allocated equally to each Senator to spend in their state or district.  One hundred Senators will get 1% each.  The funding for the states given to the House will also be allocated equally to each Representative to be spent in their state or district. 

·        Presidential signing statements and line item vetoes must be illegal.  The president’s job is to enforce laws and not make them.

The Senator or Representative will now be responsible for and accountable for how they spend state funding money.  Politicians using earmarks to pay off campaign contributors with no accountability will be eliminated. 

What is the downside of this plan?  I see only one, if you can call it a downside.  Government money used for corrupt purposes with no accountability will no longer be available to the politician.  Any politician that opposes this change is basically saying, “You can’t take away my slush fund money that I use for corrupt purposes with no accountability.” 

I was at a Town Hall meeting with US Congressman Sean Duffy of Wisconsin this week.  He has introduced legislation to eliminate earmarks.  I have not read the bill, but it has to be a step in the right direction.  I hope you give him your support.