One of my favorite political movies is “The Candidate.” If you haven’t seen it, I suggest you do. At the very end, after a Cinderella story come-from-behind victory by Robert Redford in a race for US Senate, he pulls his campaign manager aside and asks “What do we do now?”
.
That scene has always reminded me of the biggest pitfall of modern politics – being good at what it takes to get elected and being good at governing are two different things. And what is said on the campaign trail to help bolster ones’ chances of getting elected can make it harder, if not impossible, to govern. President Obama has learned this the hard way with his unnecessary bans on lobbyists in his Administration. As I see the races for Congress in 2010 shaping up, I see our local candidates making the same mistakes – making an argument that is politically popular but, in reality, is both unnecessary and even counterproductive.
.
With the release of the Pork Book a few days ago (which notes that earmarks are actually down 10%), a lot of attention has been focused on the issue. Locally, and most recently, Keith Fimian has assailed Gerry Connolly for his use of earmarks, and has pledged to both refuse to ask for earmarks as well as to support legislation banning them. He’s also called on Pat Herrity to join him in this pledge, despite the fact that Herrity has already announced his support for the House Republican moratorium on earmarks. I hope Pat refuses to take the bait and support an outright ban because Fimian’s argument – while appealing in its focus on Congressional excesses – is actually a pretty bad idea. I’m going to say something that many probably won’t like, but which I hope to convince folks to think about a little harder than they may have thought about the issue in the past:
.
There is nothing wrong with earmarks. Earmarks are not the problem. Overall spending is the problem.
.
.
Before you pick up the pitchforks and start marching on my house, think about that for a minute. What, fundamentally, are earmarks? They are a way for individual members of Congress to specify how federal funds will be spent in their districts. Each member generally gets an opportunity to earmark a certain amount of funding for local projects in the various appropriations bills that are passed each year (assuming they are passed at all). This process is usually done through form letter requests in member offices – groups, both local government, profit and non-profit groups, can submit requests to their members for an earmark, which are then reviewed by the staff, approved by the member and submitted to the various “cardinals” of the various Appropriations subcommittees. Or members can suggest earmarks on their own without a constituent request. If the earmark is accepted (and they don’t have to be – getting to pick who wins and loses is a big perk of being a subcommittee chair), they are generally included in the legislation in some form – either in the conference report, in a separate committee report, or in the text of the legislation itself. Since 2006, steps have been taken to make this practice more transparent, by requiring identification of projects and who requested them, as well as putting them all online.
.
What is inherently wrong about this process? To be honest, nothing really. Fimian and candidates like him contend that these earmarks contribute to the pork barrel spending we see in Congress that has bloated government and ballooned our budget deficits. They point to the “bridges to nowhere” and the Jack Murtha Airport with its 10 passengers a month. Those are legitimate issues and poorly chosen earmarks. But the problem isn’t the earmark itself, it’s who asked for it, how much was spent, and why. But here’s the bigger question: what’s a better alternative?
.
What Fimian and others who decry earmarks never seem to want to talk about is what happens if earmarks go away. The answer to that is simple – the money is simply parceled out (as happens now for the vast majority of federal spending) to the various federal agencies directly. From there, either career civil servants or political appointee bureaucrats make the decision over where the money goes. Those civil servants aren’t elected. Those bureaucrats aren’t accountable. The can do what they want with relative impunity and in relative obscurity. Is that really a better system? I don’t think so. It is much better to know who is asking for the earmarks, what they’re for, and who they benefit in a transparent way. And it’s also better to have a democratically elected official who can be held directly accountable in elections every two or six years making those decisions, not unnamed bureaucrats who don’t answer to the taxpayers directly.
.
I’m sure some of you are answering my question of “what’s a better way” by shouting “stop spending the money!” Sure, that’s a solution to the problem of bad earmarks, but it ignores the fact that most government spending isn’t in the form of earmarks. According to the Citizens Against Government Waste, earmarks represented $16.5 billion in 2009 – that’s a drop in the bucket of the $3 trillion+ budget and stimulus spending sprees the government has undertaken in the 15 months since President Obama has taken office. Even if earmarks were banned, the savings wouldn’t even put a dent in the deficit. And we’d still have the issue of funding being parcelled out by bureaucrats, not accountable officials.
.
Clearly, the earmark process itself isn’t the problem (although many of them are unnecessary and represent pork barrel spending at its worst). The problem is the overall spending levels. In a time when every American family has had to tighten its belt, the Federal government has spent more than ever before. In a time when working families across America are having to dig deep to pay their bills, the last thing they want to see are tax increases to pay for the questionable spending habits of federal officials. Some earmarks contribute to this process, but many don’t. The issue is, and always has been, the total amount of spending, not the ability of Congressional officials to determine how the money is spent.
.
Allowing Congressmen and women to have a say in how funds are spent in their district is not wrong. In fact, it’s a great idea. Who is in a better position to know where the money needs to go – a bureaucrat in Washington or the member of Congress who represents the district? Is a political appointee living in Potomac, Maryland really the better decisionmaker when it comes to deciding between whether funds should go to repair a bridge in rural Arkansas or to add a lane on a highway in Idaho? I don’t think so. I want Keith Fimian or Pat Herrity (or, worst case scenario, Gerry Connolly) out there fighting to get funds for Metro, for widening I-66, and for a variety of other necessary projects in Fairfax County that are necessary and not frivolous. We pay taxes for a variety of reasons, and public infrastructure is one of the best of those reasons. Why make it harder for folks in the 11th District to see a return on our investment in the Federal government?
.
It is critical that we hold legislators accountable for questionable earmarks and excessive spending. But that doesn’t mean we have to end the earmarks process simply because some bad actors have made questionable decisions and especially when the alternative is not only just as bad, it’s probably worse. Banning earmarks to solve the spending problem is like a dieter who throws out all the food he’s got in the house so he doesn’t eat it all. Wouldn’t it be a lot simpler to just exercise some self-control? Isn’t that really what we should be looking for in our elected officials? Not so much a willingness to give up power (power they need to do their jobs well) but a willingness to use that power wisely?
.
Members of Congress – and candidates – should focus their attention on making sure the money they are spending is spent wisely, not wasted, and not on frivolous projects. The process isn’t really the problem. So instead of signing or making pledges that make it harder to do the job one is campaigning for, I’d like to see potential elected officials spend more time proving that they’ve got the knowledge, experience, and understanding to be entrusted to do the job in the first place.
.
![[Post to Twitter]](http://www.tooconservative.com/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/icons/tt-twitter.png){kind=icon}
Apr 15th by Brian S
Brian, your analysis of the earmark situation is spot on. They usually do NOT represent additional spending, they are simply reserving already appropriated money for a specific project rather than the general budget of the agency invovled.
Although you’re right, no one is going to listen to this point in the current political climate.
A political boogeyman is much more useful to candidates than factual analysis.
So earmarks are going to continue to be rhetorically hammered, particularly by Republicans. If Republicans were by some chance, I don’t think this is much of a possibility, to take back control of one or both houses this year, there would be NO change to the earmark policy.
What I want to see is the electorate holding their members accountable for asking for ridiculous things. If you want to ask for an earmark for your local college to study the manufacture of environmentally friendly nose hair trimmers, you should be ridiculed. But if you’re asking for money to fix an interstate highway that is the bane of tens of thousands of your residents (I-66, I’m looking at you), you should be applauded.
Good post. The earmarks posse is a bunch of misdirection.
Earmarks are a horrible way for members of Congress to waste their time. Bureaucrats can be held accountable by Congress through other means, e.g., congressional investigations and queries. The system just perpetuates the system of Congressman as power broker, instead of Congressman as a true representative.
Let me state this differently in a way that should appeal to this board. Do you think that Jim Moran is more qualified to determine what defense contractors are provided defense funds than an employee at the Department of Defense?
Yes, I do, WEV. Because Jim Moran was elected, and part of his job is to vote on who gets what federal money. And if we don’t like how he spends it, we can fire him. When was the last time an employee of the Department of Defense was fired for wasting taxpayer money?
I’d fell much better about earmarks if things like the Bridge to Nowhere and the Lawrence Welk Museum weren’t on the earmark list!
That’s the problem LI – you’ve got folks asking for stupid things. But what needs to happen is for those who ask for stupid things to get pilloried for it – in the press and by their opponents. That’s the best way to stop it from happening.
I resent that unwarranted attack on the Lawrence Welk Museum. Lawrence Welk was a great American and deserving of being honored.
.
I always wanted to hear him say “Play that funky music, white boy” in that marvelous accent of his. And now he is dead and I will never get to hear that.
.
The least we can do is fund his museum.
.
Better than wasting the money on highways.
Typically, I agree with Brian’s posts here, but I have disagree with him on this one. The current earmark process is grossly unfair in a representative government. The way the system works is he or she who has the most power gets the most earmarks. It also empowers many corrupt incumbents who get reelected not based on their leadership abilities, but the need to keep the earmarks flowing to fulfill the infrastructure needs of local communities. All while these incumbents also filter many earmarks to their own special interest contributors i.e. Jim Moran (D-PMA Group).
I don’t own a pitch fork, just disagree. I think we need to get back to the pre-1989 mentality, where our country somehow managed to function and met the needs of constituents for the 200 years prior to the rapid expansion of earmarks.
What sane congressional district is going to “fire” a Congress member who is bringing home the pork? Murtha was the best thing ever to happen to his district — there was little danger of him being fired, even though his earmarks were often ludicrous.
The earmark system locks in the “stovepipe” culture that completely cripples our political system. If you don’t toe that party line, you will not get your earmarks, and you will likely not get reelected. I personally do not want only Pelosi and Boehner calling the shots in the House, and Reid and McConnell in the Senate.
Furthermore, earmarks lock in a “pay-to-play” scheme that has been going on way too long, and makes it difficult to remove politicians that are not performing well.
You might want to check out VA-08 — Moran may have a job for you against the anti-earmark crusader Matthew Berry…
There is never going to be a 100% fundamentally fair way to apportion out federal funding for projects. Politics will always be a part of those decisions, and trying to argue against that is like trying to stop the tide. The best thing to do is hold folks accountable for the crappy spending, and that requires people knowing about it and doing something about it.
.
We have no one to blame except ourselves if we reward members of Congress who bring home billions in questionable, like Jack Murtha, Robert Byrd and Ted Stevens.
.
I think the pre-1989 system Mike mentions wouldn’t work as well in the current environment – part of it was simply that instead of Congress doing the earmarks themselves, they simply pressured the executive branch directly. That doesn’t happen as often as it used to, mainly because transparency is so much greater than it used to be.
.
The voters in the district need to be more discerning – I have no problems with my Congressman bringing home the bacon, but when it’s really just pork, that’s when we need to start holding him accountable. As Fimian notes, Connolly has requested $3 billion in earmarks – that’s just nuts.
.
Earmarks don’t always guarantee reelection, nor does not taking them guarantee losing. Some of the most ardent anti-earmark foes, like John McCain, don’t seem to have a hard time getting reelected.
.
And, again, I’m not arguing against punishing the bad actors. Jim Moran has clearly abused the process (among other things) and deserves to be thrown out on his butt. Like I said before, the process itself isn’t bad, it’s when members use the process badly that it becomes objectionable. And that, fundamentally, goes to the question of whom voters choose to fill these jobs. I’d rather elect someone who is willing to show some self-restraint than someone who thinks we need to shut it all down because of a few bad apples.
Rep’s like Murtha allowed their districts to become addicted to earmarks, for the better part of 30 years. Not only would they re-elect him over and over just for the money, the presence of pork keep constituents complacent and employed with federal tax payer dollars. Oh wait, until “shovel ready” projects are financed with more pork because of a stimulus package to avert unemployment. Double whammy for certain areas of the country – they subsist on federal money, and in turn become taxpayer pits. Robert Byrd could be comatose and the people of WV will vote him in, he is the King of Pork.
*
Cow flatulence projects and the Lawrence Welk museums are buried in huge bill, like HC, and we find out after the fact. I don’t trust the lot of them – newest numbers on “pork” – 60% D’s, 40% R’s – sounds pretty even to me.
*
I do see the unelected bureacrat argument though, and we are seeing the power these individuals are exhibiting in the current administration, Czars that have unchecked powers and availability to our money. But, I think Brian tailored this argument to be anti-Fimian, and if it had been Herrity he would was tailored it to his benefit. Just sayin. Let’s just call the evil Toad Connelly Pork King and be done, he’s short, round and probably pretty tasty after being in the oven for 90 minutes.
LL, honestly no. If Pat had signed on, made this pledge, or called on Fimian to make it I would have said the exact same thing. I’m not trying to turn this into an anti-Fimian post, but I see his material far more than I see anyone else’s.
.
Yes, I’m pro-Herrity, but I’m trying my best to be fair.
Here’s a simple idea — require each Congresscritter who puts in an earmark to specify exactly which line in Article I, Section 8 that project falls under.
Jack, they’ll all just put “commerce clause” or “tax and spend clause.” And, unfortunately, they’ll be right 99.9% of the time.
LL-Yes, districts whose representatives have worked hard to help them remain prosperous should certainly be outraged and throw the bums out because that violates some fictitious notion about how government is supposed to work which fails to describe the way it ever has worked, anywhere. You’re right, dead Byrd would be live Ann Rand everyday.
make that beat live Ann Rand
Do you mean Ayn?
.
You Lawrence Welk haters are shameful.
.
*pop….fizzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Yep, sorry, synapse failure. Might have damaged that one in New Orlean in about 1980.
I enjoy the Woodrow Wilson Bridge.
Brian, we have no one to blame but ourselves when we fail to regulate the questionable practices of our legislators? I thought just a few posts ago we were incapable of doing that and needed a constitutional convention.
*
What resources does a congressman have to really say that their one earmark project has greater merit than any other funding need out there? It seems well over and above giving direction on how money is to be spent to have this degree of specificity (not that the FAR is light reading). Why are they better at deciding than a staff of professionals hired at an agency? And why is it okay that they circumvent good contracting and good cost control by not competitively awarding these funds? What sort of review is done on these items to see whether they were even an effective use of government funds? Are they subject to audits by the Inspectors General of the applicable agency?
Steve, The problem is the people of those districts are conditioned to want that pork, in many cases they think they deserve that pork. It’s a federal welfare mentality and leads to free Obama money!
*
You’re using Robery Byrd as a defense against Ayn Rand? I lean towards Rand, and believe me – what she wrote is not fiction. It is history, and it’s repeating itself right now. If you want to defend living in the nest of Byrd country – feel free!
“What resources does a congressman have to really say that their one earmark project has greater merit than any other funding need out there?” — Their congressional budget ($1MM I think), which should be put to better use, e.g., constituent services. Last time I checked, there were not many transportation engineers, planners, etc. elected as members of Congress.
it’s like ron paul said, pork is just a tangible return on the tax payers’ investment.
LL- I’m playing nice this week, so let me just say I’m pretty sure Rand wasn’t a historian.
The problem is Federal funds being spent on things that aren’t the least bit Federal. It used to be that earmarks were mostly about where Federal projects were sited. Whose district would get the Interstate Highway? Should the Space Control center be located near the launch pad in Florida (”We have a problem Cocoa Beach” wouldn’t have been so memorable) or would the Johnson Space Center be located elsewhere in the the region (Houston worked well since the first astronauts were all pilots who had to get up and out to get their flight hours in anyhow) influenced by a powerful politician (LBJ).
Then came along the Nixon administraton and revenue sharing. Revenue sharing distributed Federal money in grants or block grants to all levels of government, allowing wide discretion on how the money would be spent (I recall road funds being used to paint double yellow lines down residential streets). Rationality went out the window.
Ever since there has been no discipline in what the Federal Government does and does not pay for. And we are all the worse off for it.
So personally, I respect the no earmarks position because it raises a very important issue, albeit in an oblique way.
Steve, Did I say Rand was a historian? She wrote fiction, however the collapse of a crushing central government that kills entire industries and entrepreneurship has been played out in history. She was fairly accurate in her predictions, right up to the sniveling bureaucrats and their idiotic thought processes and speeches. I’m glad you are having a nice week.
Tx2vaDem, the Constitutional convention idea addresses a completely different issue – not that Congress can’t reign in its own spending (it has demonstrated that it can do so when it wants to, as in the 1995-2000 period), but that Congress is generally unwilling, as a body, to accept limits on what it can and cannot regulate or legislate on.
.
This isn’t a question of what resources a Congressman has to make a judgment call – it’s simply the fact that when it comes down to giving someone the power to make that judgment call, I’m going to err in favor of giving it to the individual who was elected, rather than the one who was not. The earmarking doesn’t always result in a specific firm or organization getting the money – especially if it’s an infrastructure project. If Connolly gets $700 million for an I-66 widening project, that still requires competitive bidding. But instead of that money ending up in a block grant to DOT to be parceled out according to whatever mood they happen to be in, it gets spent where the member of Congress chooses – and that makes sense. That’s one of the things they’re elected to do.
“Jack, they’ll all just put ‘commerce clause’ or ‘tax and spend clause.’ And, unfortunately, they’ll be right 99.9% of the time.”
First, there IS no “tax and spend clause.”
Second, “$174,000 for the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Commission”?
Do shellfish have their own bathrooms?
Brian is correct.
Please remember this example, the “Predator” (flying pilotless airplane) was an earmark long resisted by the huge defense contractors and the Department of Defense. Left to the bureaucrats at the Pentagon, this incredibly successful program that has protected our troops and terrified our enemies would never have been come forth.
Brian’s point should be heeded…………there are stupid earmarks…..and then there are earmarks that spur innovation and are truly needed in the community (i.e. earmark for the new Wilson Bridge).
Brian:
I agree with you 100%.
For those who believe earmarks are only a recent event, you night want to know that earmarks are older than this Republic; I have read of earmarks during the Revolutionary War. In point of fact in 1777, A Josiah Clapham of Loudoun County was given an earmarked grant of 350 pounds sterling to start up a “gun manufactory” in Loudoun County. At that time, Clapham had no experience with gun-making or even gun-smithing.
By the way, I was sorry to hear tthat you were banned from BV. The RPV trolls invading that site now are nowhere near as competent as you were.
TP3 and Brian, Do you trust the current crop of elected representatives to request and evaluate the RIGHT and PROPER kind of earmarks? If so, please knock yourselves on the head 3 times with a hammer.
Earmarks are corrupt. Establishing the view that we want to elect Cognress to run in and grab a piece of the pie for whatever strikes their fancy is wrong.
To say the only way government will function is via corruption is shocking.
I’m sorry, but whoever wrote this post doesn’t understand what earmarks are and what they do. Of COURSE earmarks are a drop in the bucket of a much larger overall spending problem. But that’s the whole point. The only reason otherwise responsible congressmen and Senators vote for bloated, wasteful “overall” spending bills is that they have earmarks embedded in them, giving them a perverse incentive to vote for the garbage. If a bill is wasteful, all the leaders and chairmen have to do is sprinkle enough earmarks into it and, voila, 218 people in the House and 60 in the Senate will suddenly, magically support it. Earmarks are the fulcrum of the big government lever, the instrument of the big government “tipping point.” If you ban all earmarks, sure the money in the bills will just be absorbed into other programs — BUT NO ONE WILL VOTE FOR THEM. Without a personal stake in the passage of bad bills, members won’t vote for them, and then all of a sudden, there will be a downward pressure on spending totals. Take away members’ incentive to grow government, and government will stop growing. Keith Fimian seems to get this.
LL, of course not. That’s why we need to vote them out, like Gerry Connolly.
.
Mike C., I know exactly what earmarks are and what they do. I’ve been lobbying in DC for the last seven years and I served in government for one. I am not an earmark lobbyist, but it’s something everyone knows how to do.
.
The whole argument that earmarks are used as quid pro quos to justify folks voting for larger, bloated spending bills is commonly made and sure, depending on how important the project is, it may sway a few votes. But if the overall package is bad and will be a political liability for the member, no amount of earmarked funding is going to justify the vote.
.
People are still going to vote for the bills because there are other ways of logrolling than simply providing earmarks. Support for legislation (you scratch my back and I scratch yours) is always more important than earmarks when it comes to cutting deals. Committee assignments, office space, CoDels – there are a myriad of ways that folks can barter their votes away on Capitol Hill. Banning earmarks will not stop these bloated bills from passing. They have to be defeated on the merits.
.
I don’t know what Keith Fimian seems to get, but from his talking points, he seems to simply fall into the same old pattern of “earmarks bad” type rhetoric that doesn’t actually address the underlying problem.
.
Its the same type of rhetoric that makes people think that a Congressman will sell his soul for a $50 steak dinner or a handful of campaign contributions. It sounds good on paper and out on the hustings, but when you look at it more closely, it falls apart.
Brian, but it absolutely should be a question of what resources they have to make that judgment call. Without such resources how can they make an assessment that this one thing has greater merit than any other spending priority of the federal government?
*
I think the dismissiveness of civil servants is unhelpful. If we can rely on Congress to specifically parce out all this money at the degree of detail of earmarks, why hire people at the agencies to do this at all? And if management at DOT (as in your example) is so incompetent, why even appropriate transportation funds at all? And if incompetence is the issue, why isn’t the appropriate response a GAO audit and congressional hearings?
Tx2vadem, it’s a judgment call. There’s no mathematical formula to tell you whether it’s better to build a road or repair a bridge, build a museum, or a fund a research project – that type of thing (intra-district) is best left up to the individual members. Interdistrict and interstate is always going to be the prerogative of the leadership, as is determining where the money goes to begin with. Under your reasoning, why should Congress decide how much money to give DOT or the State Department? Are the resources available to Congressional staff better at doing that than those in the Departments?
.
Don’t get me wrong – I’m not bashing civil servants. I’m a big fan and the year I spent in government was eye opening in that regard. I worked with a lot of dedicated, hard working and conscientious civil servants. The point I’m trying to make is that they don’t have to bear the political burden of the decisions they make. You know as well as I do how difficult it is to fire a federal employee for anything short of malfeasance – no one is going to get fired if they make a bad judgment call on allowing an inane study or bridge to nowhere get paid for. But that SHOULD happen when it comes to Congress.
.
The system shouldn’t be either all one or all the other.
.
A GAO audit and Congressional hearings are important, but they also can be ignored. The only real stick Congress has is to reduce, deny or revoke funding to the agency. Congress and the GAO can’t fire executive branch employees. They can make life miserable for the appointees, but that’s about it. There needs to be more accountability than that when we’re talking about taxpayer dollars.
“LL, of course not. That’s why we need to vote them out, like Gerry Connolly” – it ain’t that simple Brian, if it was I think we’d have done it by now. The constituent salivation over “what can he do for ME” is too prevelant, it is a mindset voters should not have!
“There’s no mathematical formula to tell you whether it’s better to build a road or repair a bridge, build a museum, or a fund a research project – that type of thing (intra-district) is best left up to the individual members.”
How about leaving it up to the government of that district? If that government thinks a project is worthwhile, then they can tax THEIR people for it. The Constitution gives Congress no authority to tax people of one State to pay for a park or library in another.
“The Constitution gives Congress no authority to tax people of one State to pay for a park or library in another.”
.
Let’s not forget those pesky interstate highways that the ZOG unconstitutionally taxes us to build. That should be a state matter too!
.
Of course, it might be a problem when you are cruising south on Interstate 95 and you reach the border of a crazy state like South Carolina and the highway suddenly changes into a dirt road. Oh, well.
.
So, all the national parks are unconstitutional? Or at least the taxes used to build them were collected unconstitutionally?
.
I want my money back for the Air Force too. There is nothing in the Constitution about an Air Force. Clearly using tax dollars for an Air Force that isn’t mentioned in the Constitution is unacceptable!
.
Brian, maybe you could treat us to one of your legal analyses on Jack’s constitutional theory. Cite the relevant case law and the arguments that supports the constitutionality of some of the things the government does that Jack deems unconstitutional.
.
You have the legal training and you are fair minded. Although I’m not sure Jack will accept the validity of any interpretation other than his own. And in previous threads he has not accepted the validity of legal precedent.
.
Not sure how the rule of law is supposed to work under a system of “Jack’s opinion trumps all laws or prior court rulings including the Supreme Court”. But maybe you’d like to take a stab at defending a couple of centuries of legal history against an argument that can pretty much be summed up as “It is wrong because I say it is wrong and I am right”.
Brian, Congress must make overall budgetary and financing decisions. But there was nothing in my reasoning suggesting that they not do that. There certainly are objective measures in which to appropriate transportation funds based on need. For museums and research projects, maybe not as much, but nothing prevents them from setting guidelines on what they want done with the funding and laying out who is elligible. A process where everyone competes for the funding I think would yield a better result than some congressman just picking themselves.
*
“…no one is going to get fired if they make a bad judgment call…” – No, but politicians can make sure they feel heat for making a bad decision.
*
I think our goal should be to allocate funds based on either merit or need. My problem with earmarks is how does anyone ever demonstrate that this project has greater merit or represents a greater need than anything else. And again does anyone ever go back and look at these specific projects and ask whether we achieved whatever our objective was with that funding and how effective was it?
Dan, the IHS was actually proposed under the “provide for the common defense” clause. Eisenhower saw how the autobahns were used in Germany to transport troops and materiel. They were also arranged with long stretches that did not have overpasses or crossing wires, thus being able to act field-expedient runways.
.
It can also be argued that the IHS promotes the general welfare of the States, considering the ease with which it allows goods to be transported from State to State. It is for that very reason that I also strongly support federal funding of cargo rail, which would have the same benefit to the States, and which would get the trucks off the highways, saving fuel, carbon emissions, and lives.
.
While I must say I like the National Parks and National Forests, I have not dug into how they might contribute to the general welfare of the States or whether they fall under some other Congressional power. However, I’d fully support a Constitutional Amendment that gave Congress that power.
.
I agree with you on the Air Force, though. They should go back to being the Army Air Corps.
“[Does] anyone ever go back and look at these specific projects and ask whether we achieved whatever our objective was with that funding and how effective was it?”
.
Maybe some congresscritter can put in an earmark to do that study!!
“I agree with you on the Air Force, though. They should go back to being the Army Air Corps”
Nah. Drones and computerized vehicles will soon make both the Army and the Air Force obsolete. Call the result, something new….I don’t know, Skynet maybe?
the IHS was actually proposed under the “provide for the common defense” clause. Eisenhower saw how the autobahns were used in Germany to transport troops and materiel. They were also arranged with long stretches that did not have overpasses or crossing wires, thus being able to act field-expedient runways.”
.
Agh. The ol’ highways were meant to be runways myth, in this case employed to bring our Federal Highway system in line with Jack’s Constitutional theories.
.
http://www.snopes.com/autos/law/airstrip.asp
.
Like Indian Charlie says, “never let facts get in the way of a good story” (Jack, you might have to go on the internets google thing to find out who Indian Charlie is.
Aircraft or no (and many civilian aircraft HAVE landed on highways, despite the “any number of small, private airfields”), the article you cite does mention troop and materiel transport. Furthermore, is there any denying that the IHS promotes the general welfare of the States by making the transport of goods less expensive?
Jack, I don’t see why you make the argument that there’s no “tax and spend” clause and then proceed to talk about “general welfare” when that phrase comes from the “tax and spend” clause itself. While I agree with you that the federal government has, in some places, exceeded its constitutional authority, you have to acknowledge that not every power the government had is directly enumerated in its text.
.
To respond to Tx2vadem’s question, yes, OMB has a scorecard that rates all of the programs across the federal government on a red/yellow/green rating. Here’s the link to the website, but it looks like it hasn’t been updated since we left office last January. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/rewrite/budintegration/scorecards/agency_scorecards.html
.
I say that, Brian, because the word “spend” does not appear in the Constitution at all.
.
The clause you are referring to says, “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.”
.
Congress cannot tax for any reason — but only to raise revenue. Nor may Congress spend money for any reason, but only for those things specified in Article I, Section 8, or for those things specified in the Amendments.
“[You] have to acknowledge that not every power the government had is directly enumerated in its text.”
.
Such as?
Jack, you’re being far too literal. “Tax and spend clause” is the common shorthand for that clause. And if “pay the debts” doesn’t mean “spend” then what does it mean? How does one incur debts otherwise? And why, in the next clause, does Congress have the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States? We gain nothing by playing those kinds of games with the text.
.
As for enumeration, such as the ability to create, for example, a Bank of the United States. Or the various departments. Or a Marine Corps. Or judicial review. All of those things were done early on, generally, as Chief Justice Marshall noted, through the logical use of the necessary and proper clause along with a grant of authority. The whole point of the text was to be vague enough to allow the government the flexibility to do what needed to be done in order to govern the country, without being too flexible and vague, thus allowing the government to do anything. I think we’re edging too close to the latter, but we also have to be cognizant of the former. Madison himself didn’t believe the necessary and proper clause needed to be included in the text because he viewed it as being superfluous – of course the government can take rationally related actions necessary to use the powers granted. But I’m glad the Convention overruled him, otherwise we’d be fighting about that nowadays, too.
“Congress cannot tax for any reason — but only to raise revenue”
Can you give me an example of a tax that doesn’t raise revenue? That’s what taxes do.
“to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.”
I think you can justify pretty much anything Congress has ever spent money on in these three categories.
We incurred debts BEFORE the Constitution was written, under the Article of Confederation, and those debts were assumed by the new government.
.
Second, debt is accumulated by paying for constitutional items, such as Post offices, Postal Roads, constitute Tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court, etc. Being empowered to borrow money, as the Constitution allows, does not empower Congress to spend that money any way it pleases. If it did, then all of the other items mentioned in Article I, Section 8 are redundant.
As for the Marine Corps, it is, as they say, a Department of the Navy — the MEN’S Department. And the Navy IS specified in Article I, Section 8.
“Can you give me an example of a tax that doesn’t raise revenue? That’s what taxes do.”
.
It is the REASON for the tax, not the result that is in question.
Jack, yes, that’s true. What’s your point? Again, is there any way to incur debts without spending? No.
.
No court has ever struck down a single item of spending as being outside Congress’ power to spend and they will never do that – separation of powers notwithstanding, they don’t want to take on that kind of responsibility. You’d have ever citizens group suing Congress on every spending bill to justify why they’re doing what they’re doing.
.
You’re barking up the wrong tree here. You’re not going to curb Congressional spending by making an argument that it’s unconstitutional.
So Congress can spend money on whatever it wants to, regardless of the specific, enumerated powers given to it by the Constitution? Then what is the point of the Constitution’s enumerating specific powers? What is the point of the 10th Amendment?
.
I think we should see some such lawsuits go to the Supreme Court, and subpoena the sponsoring congresscritters to identify which of the specific, enumerated powers they are exercising for some of this nonsense.
As long as the authorization is valid, the appropriation is valid, yes. The authorization is where the constitutional fight should be had, not the spending.
I think we are in agreement, then.