The case for or against earmarks is shifting as much as the raison d’etre did for the War in Iraq days after the invasion when WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) were not found piled in heaps at every Baghdad street corner. The casus belli morphed from weapons to ridding the world of a vicious dictator to enforcing United Nations sanctions to bringing the enlightenment of democracy to the greater Middle East.
Whenever an original premise for action changes that quickly and radically, it usually means that something has gone terribly wrong with Plan A.
So it is with Congressional earmarks that fill many appropriations bills.
How would I dare to compare earmarks with the Iraqi War and the ultimate sacrifice made by thousands of American men and women? The simple answer is that I am not intending to do that; however, some philosophical parallels are obvious.
You have likely read or heard about the 8,570 earmarks (Source: Taxpayers for Common Sense) in the current omnibus spending bill that has wended its way through Congress. President Obama is inclined to sign the bill and dismiss the earmarks as products of the previous administration.
During the past week, an entirely new narrative appeared about earmarks. We were told that it is preferable to have elected officials determine which projects merit funding rather than nameless, faceless Washington bureaucrats.
Ah, revisionism. How this new alternative argument could flood the media as President Obama faces hypocrisy charges about earmarks may give form to some folks’ belief of a left-wing media bias.
So amused – and intellectually surprised – was I about the post-modern virtues of earmarks that I contacted Congressperson Jeff Flake’s (R-Arizona) Capitol Hill’s office about them. What I learned exposed the true evil behind earmarks. Congressman Flake is a five-term Representative and an avowed, anti-earmark crusader, who won reelection last November with over 60% of the vote.
For decades, I knew earmarks were those specific projects – sometimes demonstrably valuable and worthwhile, sometimes not – which senior and influential lawbreakers injected into the federal budget for their constituents’ alleged benefit. Lesser legislators and their flocks had to wait their seniority turns to feed at the public trough and bring home the bacon, the ‘pork.’
But the real evil is that earmarks result in sole-source procurements to companies in the Congressperson’s state or district which probably contributed to the sponsoring politician’s campaign. Once a bill with earmarks becomes law, no fair-and-open procurement process occurs to determine which company will provide the best products at the best price to the government.
Lesser-known documents, behind-the-scenes and subsidiary to the appropriations bill, i. e, conference reports, direct that certain businesses perform the work associated with the approved earmarks. Senators and Representatives sign documents swearing they hold no financial interest in the specified business, but how true is that? While they may have no formal monetary interest in that enterprise, they certainly have a political one, as these businesses feather their reelection campaign chests.
So, when you read about how many people complain that incumbents are reelected over 90% of the time, ask yourself: do you think earmarks could have something to do with it? Do you think the ability to maintain well-financed campaigns could be related?
If so, you will understand the real evil behind earmarks.
+++
Fred W. Apelquist, III
Approximately 545 words
© March 11, 2009
+++
YETMO: “You’re Entitled To My Opinion,” A Balanced Point of View
"To stimulate thought, debate, and introspection”