By Dan Calabrese ——Bio and Archives--November 17, 2016
American Politics, News | CFP Comments | Reader Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us
“After a long debate, it was clear there’s a lot of pent up frustration with ceding spending authority to the Executive Branch,” said the source in the room. “[The Speaker] said we just had a ‘drain the swamp’ election and cannot turn right around and bring back earmarks behind closed doors.” But while the votes have been delayed for now, it’s far from certain that Republicans will keep the earmark ban in place when a public vote is held next year. Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), a senior member of the House Appropriations Committee, said he expects members to be just as supportive of overturning the earmarks ban in public as they were in private.
“They need to come back,” said Cole, who is chairman of an Appropriations subcommittee. He said that even Ryan had seemed to acknowledge recently the growing demand among members to gain more control over spending bills. “I think it’s a helpful lubricant to the system,” he said. “It’s a way to take care of problems. Bureaucracies don’t always see the problems.”That's an image I could have done without, but whatever. There actually is a conservative argument for earmarks, although to my mind it's not a very strong one. The argument goes that you've got all this money allocated for discretionary spending, and if you don't earmark it for specific projects wanted by members of Congress, all you're doing is ceding the discretion to the executive branch. The money will still get spent, but it will get spent on priorities chosen by the president or, worse yet, by bureaucrats. So, it's argued, better to let members of Congress earmark the funds because they're aware of specific situations in their districts that can really use the money. OK, that argument sounds reasonable on first hearing. But there are two massive problems with it. The first is that there's no reason to assume members of Congress are any more responsible than the administration in how they earmark the money. Sure, they know their respective districts better than the president does. But all that means is that it's easier to earmark funds on boondoggles that reward political supporters or otherwise make them look good. I remember some years back, members of the Michigan delegation were awfully proud of themselves for earmarking funds to preserve old Tiger Stadium. But there was no practical way to use the money, and ultimately Tiger Stadium was torn down. It made good press release fodder, but that's all it was. Lots of earmarks are like that. Their primary purpose is to make the congressman look good, not to really benefit the community in any meaningful way.
View Comments
Dan Calabrese’s column is distributed by HermanCain.com, which can be found at HermanCain
Follow all of Dan’s work, including his series of Christian spiritual warfare novels, by liking his page on Facebook.