Lawmakers Remain Tight Lipped About Earmark Requests
By RS Insider Posted in Congress | Culture of Corruption — Comments (2) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Both the House and the Senate voted earlier this year to identify the sponsors of pet projects that get funded through federal spending bills. But they did not require lawmakers to disclose all the funding they are requesting — an extra step that could ensure more transparency. As the deadline for lawmakers to submit their requests passes, newspapers across the country are polling their state congressional delegations to see who will disclose their funding requests, and who will not. Here is a sampling of these stories.
· California: The Tulare Advanced-Register reports that “Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, both California Democrats, declined to disclose a full list of the requests they have made so far.”
· Florida: The Tampa Tribune reports that “two - Republican representatives Ginny Brown-Waite of Brooksville and C.W. Bill Young of Largo - refuse to disclose their requests for what often are described as budget earmarks.” Yet, “two freshman House members - Democrat Kathy Castor of Tampa and Republican Gus Bilirakis of Palm Harbor - agreed to release to The Tampa Tribune what they say are their complete request lists. So did four-term Republican Rep. Adam Putnam of Bartow, the House GOP conference chairman.”
Read on . . .
· New York: The Daily Freeman reports that “first-term U.S. Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand has released details of her 188 requests for federal "earmark" funding in her district.” Yet “spokespeople for Reps. Maurice Hinchey, D-Hurley, and John Hall, D-Dover Plains, and Democratic U.S. Sens. Charles Schumer and Hillary Clinton of New York said such information is treated as confidential by their offices until the funding is approved.”
· Missouri: The News-Leader reports that “Reps. Roy Blunt, Ike Skelton and Sen. Christopher "Kit" Bond declined to release their requests for federal funding of local projects in the proposed 2008 budget, despite new rules designed to bring openness to the process.”
· Nevada: The Reno Gazette-Journal reports that “Both U.S. Sens. Harry Reid and John Ensign have recently pushed for more openness in the federal budget process, but neither would disclose his individual funding requests for projects back home.
· Wisconsin: The Post-Crescent reports that “Reps. Paul Ryan and Jim Sensenbrenner are the only members of the Wisconsin congressional delegation releasing their requests for federal funding of local project in the proposed 2008 budget.” Yet the “other six House lawmakers — including Reps. Steve Kagen, D-Appleton, and Tom Petri, R-Fond du Lac — will not disclose the lists they have submitted to the House Appropriations Committee unless the projects are approved and put into a spending bill that goes to the House floor for a vote.”
Most lawmakers will refuse to go public with a complete list of their earmark requests. They know this disclosure will only bring them more embarrassment. First, it would allow everyone to see the full extent of their efforts to waste money. If money for the “Bridge to Nowhere” can make it into a bill, imagine how wasteful some of the projects are that get rejected.
But perhaps even more threatening, this disclosure would allow the public to see exactly how the earmarking process works. Many lawmakers tell their constituents (and earmark lobbyists) that they will request the funds for a local project but never actually do so because they know the request will reduce the chances of getting funding for another project. Full earmark disclosure would put an immediate end to this game and force lawmakers to be honest about the projects they believe have merit, as well as those they do not.
This presents Congress a terrible dilemma. If a lawmaker requests funding for every project in his state, he will look extremely wasteful. On the other hand, if a lawmaker requests funding for only a few projects, she will have to explain her opposition to the others. Under these conditions, the earmarking process will quickly begin to lose its appeal and many politicians may finally come to the conclusion that it’s not worth the trouble.
« Rep. Capuano's Newspeak for Censorship — Comments (5) | GET ON THE PHONE NOW! — Comments (4) »
Lawmakers Remain Tight Lipped About Earmark Requests 2 Comments (0 topical, 2 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Turn on the lights and watch the coach roaches scatter.
If there is one lesson we all should learn is to basically ignore what congress says and focus on what it doesn't say. More often than not their sound bytes are about smoke screens. When is the last time you heard anyone talk about their own earmark in public? There is alot of fingerpointing is about all. Takes one to know one.
The internet would be a great way to present all earmarks in a readable easily understood manner for people to understand them, know how much money is involved and who voted for them. If they legislated easy to read/understand Nutrition Facts on all food they surely can do it for their own pork.
I also think congress should have rules in place limiting all language/attachments to bills as relevant to a core issue. This way it will shed the same light on voting records. How many times do you hear some congressmen defend his voting record saying he/she was voting against or for some small provision in the bill? This will take that excuse away.
Congress does NOT want us to have a clean score card on them. Let's make them.
Aren't the changes in Washington that are needed normally basic common sense?
If you always find yourself arguing the exceptions rather than the rule you just might be rapidly sliding down your own slippery slope to irrelevance. -CommonCents
Sunlight may indeed be a cure for this malignant behavior. Exposing all proposed earmarks will put Congress on the spot - explaining the ones they dropped off as well as trying to justify the ones still on their list. This will limit promising earmarks as a quid pro quo for campaign cash and/or support.
====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison