Should Congressional representatives be allowed to add earmarks to appropriations bills?

Yes

1 of 2

by Stephen Pate

• 

Write now Print Invite a writer™ Add to Favorites RSS Feed Contact this writer

Should Congressional representatives be allowed to add earmarks to appropriations bills? Well, yes, I believe they should. Many people accuse of earmarks as being pork barrel spending. But it is the job of our Representatives to support their constituency, their district. And federal funds earmarked for a certain district is considered to be pork barrel spending to everyone except those who live in the district that receives it.

An earmark is a provision in a legislative bill in which Congress directs the spending of federal money. It is different from normal appropriations legislation, which provides federal agencies with a lump sum of federal money and allows the agency to spend it as it sees fit. With earmarks, however, Congress, not a federal agency, determines how the money is spent.

The ability for Congressmen to pass earmarks has been criticized as pork barrel spending. Critics point out that earmarks allow Congressmen to spend federal money to campaign contributors in their state or district. They say that such practices are unethical, since Congressmen will only make earmarks for corporate contributors rather than for important projects for their state or district.

Another criticism is that earmarks are added anonymously to legislation. This means that it can be very difficult to tell what an earmark is from the rest of the legislation. This is aggravated by the fact that Congressmen don't have to identify themselves when they add an earmark to a bill.

This makes it difficult for watchdog groups to track which earmarks are being added by which Congressmen. Critics would like more transparency and tracking in the earmark process to prevent corruption.

I don't agree with any of these criticisms at all. It is part of House's power of the purse to determine how federal money is spent, and that power shouldn't be limited. Also, the purpose of Congress to represent their constituents in the federal government and directly determining how federal money is spent helps them to do so.

Earmarks are criticized because it is spending directed by Congressmen to their home districts. They say that such earmarks are done to favor small districts even though it is federal money being spent. Such critics state that federal money should benefit the whole of the United States, not just a small district.

But for many districts, especially rural ones, such earmarks are the only way they can get needed projects. Rural districts cost more because, generally speaking, there are fewer people spread over a large area. This means it is more difficult for rural districts to benefit from certain public services, such as public transportation or internet.

Rural districts also have a more difficult time raising the tax money to pay for public projects. The agriculture industry must have the prices of their goods kept low so people can afford to buy staple foods and not go hungry. Because of these factors, tax revenue from rural districts are too slim to support needed projects.

This is why rural areas need money derived from federal funds. Local and state funds aren't enough to pay for them. But rural areas need funds to support their infrastructure. While that may not seem important to others, it is vital for those who choose to live in such areas.

Without the support of federal funds in rural and poorer districts, the gap between the rural poor and the urban wealthy will grow larger and larger over time. Earmarks are a way of providing better opportunities to Americans in areas that would otherwise be without them.

Another defense of earmarks also comes from the House's power of the purse. Congress should be able to direct some funds paid for by federal money. Doing so is a check on the Cabinet departments and federal agencies of the executive branch.

If Congress were not able to direct the spending of some federal funds, they could only give lump sums to Cabinet departments and federal agencies. Such lump sums are spent however the departments and agencies see fit to spend. This would give the executive branch broad spending powers without any congressional oversight.

So if the President and Congress were in conflict over certain issues, the actions each branch could take would be extreme. Congress' only recourse would be to either approve the appropriations bill, which the President and his departments could spend in ways against the wishes of Congress, or refuse to pass the appropriations bill, which would limit the total functioning of government in ways Congress doesn't necessarily want. Congress must either totally approve or totally disapprove of how the President and his Cabinet.

Even if the President and Congress weren't in conflict with each other, earmarks help prevent corruption within the executive branch. Without earmarks, the President and federal agencies could spend federal money however they want. Thus, the President and his Cabinet would be able to do so without any practical opposition from Congress.

Earmarks are a great compromise in conflicts between Congress and the President. Congress can provide as much in lump sums to federal agencies as much as they trust the President to spend it according to Congress' wishes.

If Congress doesn't trust the President or his Cabinet, they can resort to earmarks to limit the spending to only those functions of federal agencies Congress approves of. In this way, earmarks are not a sign of corruption by Congress but rather a prevention of corruption by the President.

Critics who are against the anonymity of earmarks and those who insert them into bills want to make earmarks more transparent. But doing so would take an important tactic away from junior Congressmen. Junior Congressmen use earmarks to support their district. Take away the anonymity of earmarks and you take away their power to provide for their district.

Junior Congressmen have very little power in Congress. They don't know the multitude of rules and procedures of the House and they typically haven't made many allies in their political party. For the most part, junior Congressmen are greatly influenced by their more tenured peers.

This means that the agendas of junior Congressmen can be ignored by more powerful Congressmen. A junior Congressman who was elected to his seat on certain issues may not have the clout to pursue those issues. Another possibility is that the issues he was elected on are actively opposed by more powerful Congressmen, either of the same party or from their opposing party.

Anonymity in the earmark process helps to protect junior Congressmen from having their issues stifled. If earmarks and whoever inserted them became known, powerful members in the House committees, Senate committees, and conference committees can reject earmarks because of opposition to the Congressman who inserted it or simply because a Congressman of a different party inserted it. This could cause politics within Congress to become even more petty than it is now, a situation I am sure no American really wants.

Many critics of earmarks also state that most of them are wastes of federal funding, calling them pork barrel because they are only issued to campaign contributors or to districts to garner more votes when re-election time comes. But that's not really the truth.

Member-directed projects usually account for only 2% of federal spending. More likely than not, there's more waste from agency-directed spending, which Congress has little control over, than from earmarks.

People like to blame earmarks for wasteful spending by our federal government. The truth of it is, though, is that who determines what is and isn't wasteful? People may require the projects that was earmarked in their district. It could be something as simple as a new school or a water treatment plant that local and state funds can't cover.

While it may not be important to other areas of the country, a Congressman isn't answerable to the entirety of our nation. A Congressman of the House of Representatives is responsible to his district. So Congressmen use earmarks to provide for their constituents.

Why is this surprising? That was the reason why they were elected into office in the first place and it was the purpose the Founding Fathers gave to them when the Constitution was written.

Learn more about this author, Stephen Pate.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.