Followup Articles on Pork ‘N Earmarks
Two more articles about what makes an earmark, what defines pork, and when are they justified, are in the Missouri media. Dave Catanese has an interview over at KY3 with Rep. Roy Blunt on the subject (link via Combest), and the Columbia Daily Tribune had a story a few days ago about the Jeff City legislative process used to spend the stimulus funds. I particularly recommend the interviews with two former Missouri legislators at the end of the KY3 story.
It is pretty clear that the stimulus money turned Jeff City’s budget process into something a little more like Washington’s. That was probably unavoidable. When you tell legislators to spend a lot of money quickly, it is not going to be pretty. I don’t mean this as a criticism of the people in Jeff City, but I certainly look forward to the return of the old ways next year, when the General Assembly doesn’t have hundreds of millions to throw around. We had considered in the past doing a report on pork spending by the General Assembly, but we never did, because, frankly, there is not a lot of pork or earmarking in Jeff City. The stimulus money changed that, but hopefully only for one year. Former Sen. Wayne Goode put it well:
“The way it works in Missouri, is that you always need a majority vote somewhere — either in committee or on the floor. It doesn’t really work like it does in Congress. The process is tighter, more structured on the state level.”
I am excited to see these discussions taking place in the public, media, and campaign spheres. I applaud everyone participating in the conversation about how our governments decide to spend what they spend. The budget process in Missouri needs to remain much stricter than it is in D.C., and more of our elected officials in both parties need to swear off both earmarks (which I am defining as spending items put into place after the committee process has ended) and pork (which I am defining as using general tax dollars to benefit very limited interests).
Earmarks represent allocation of funds, not new ones. Adding earmarks to a bill does not increase the bill’s budget. The amount to be spend is already determined before earmarks are made. Attacking earmarks (at least at the federal level) is often just a distraction from the real problem of too much spending.
If government spending is happening, it is better to designate where the money is actually going, rather than just having the executive determine where all the money goes. If nothing else, this puts more sunlight on the budgeting process, and may be helpful in controlling it.
Comment by Joe Nonnenkamp — June 3, 2009 @ 1:23 p.m.
Joe,
That is incorrect. Adding earmarked spending for favored projects can absolutely increase the total amount spent in a bill. Congress does not operate under a balanced budget requirement, so there is nothing legally preventing them from spending as much as they want. A late addition to a bill can, and often does, add to the total amount spent. It does not merely divide the same pie smaller – it makes a bigger pie.
I agree with your second point, and here is a story today on this subject from the best newspaper in America.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/custom/newsroom/sns-ap-congress-spending,0,5041075.story
And another: http://www.newsday.com/services/newspaper/printedition/wednesday/nation/ny-usears046057029mar04,0,4706831.story
Comment by David Stokes — June 3, 2009 @ 1:58 p.m.
Joe,
I forgot to add, “Thanks for your comment and see you at dart banquet tonight!”
Comment by David Stokes — June 3, 2009 @ 1:59 p.m.
Here is a great commentary on this exact subject fron Heritage:
http://www.heritage.org/research/budget/wm2318.cfm
The key graph is:
“Of course, lawmakers say these projects are vital to ‘bringing home federal dollars.’ In reality, many earmarks are carved out of funding streams that were already coming back to state and local governments and local organizations anyway. All of the earmarks taken from the $5 billion Community Development Block Grant program for parks, pools, street signs, and community centers just reduce the pot of money left over to distribute to local governments for the projects they would choose. And by diverting transportation dollars into projects that are often frivolous and having nothing to do with reducing congestion or improving mobility, earmarks starve higher-priorities like road maintenance and construction, which in turn forces Congress to increase spending to replenish that funding. But earmarks generate press releases and campaign contributions for lawmakers who have only tied strings to federal money that was already coming home.”
So yes, many earmarks do come out of undirected funds, but not all of them do. They absolutely can increase spending, in both direct and indirect ways.
Comment by David Stokes — June 3, 2009 @ 2:22 p.m.