Name the Earmarkers
RedState Welcomes the Majority Leader
By John Boehner Posted in Congress | Congressional Contributors — Comments (36) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
When campaigning for the post of Leader, Congressman John Boehner promised us earmark reform. Bloggers across the political spectrum have done tremendous work in support of the move to clean up the process - so there's no better place for Congressman Boehner to give an update on his efforts. We're glad to have him.
Last January, I warned of the need for action in Congress to combat the growing perception among Americans that their government is for sale. I singled out the ancient congressional practice of “earmarking,” which has allowed legislators to anonymously insert spending projects into bills without scrutiny or significant debate. I called for creation of new procedures by which worthy projects could be distinguished from worthless pork, so unworthy projects could be publicly identified, debated, and weeded out.
This week, the House of Representatives will vote on earmark reforms that would begin to establish such a system. First we’ll vote on bipartisan legislation championed in the House by Reps. Roy Blunt (R-MO) and Tom Davis (R-VA) that would increase transparency by establishing a public database to track federal grants and contracts. Then we’ll vote on a proposal authored by Rep. David Dreier (R-CA) that would change House rules to reform the earmarking process itself.
Read on . . .
Collectively, these votes will be an important moment – not just for the House as an institution, but also for the American people, who have entrusted their elected leaders with the responsibility of managing the tax dollars they send to Washington.
Congressional Republicans have taken some meaningful steps already this year to demonstrate our commitment to a new direction on earmarks. The House Appropriations Committee, under the leadership of Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA), has significantly reduced the number of earmarks in this year’s appropriations bills. Requests for member projects in appropriations bills have been reduced by 37 percent compared to last year. And total funding for member projects has declined significantly in every appropriations bill, down by a total of $7.8 billion compared to last year.
Our progress doesn’t end there. The full House voted last spring to pass a lobbying and ethics reform package that included the first significant earmark reforms in modern history. Weeks later, we voted to give the President line-item veto authority to delete pork projects from bills that get to his desk. And when the Senate attached billions in pork projects to an emergency spending bill for our troops and hurricane clean-up, the House drew a line in the sand, declaring we would not send a bill to the President that spent a single dollar more than he had requested. The House prevailed, and the pork came out.
There is a growing realization among legislators that the lack of transparency in the current earmarking process invites the perception of corruption. The American people – to their credit – are inherently suspicious of what goes on behind closed doors in government. It’s in our DNA as Americans, and has been since 1776.
Recent events have fanned the flames of this suspicion. The bribery confession of former Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R-CA) confirmed the current earmarking system can be manipulated by those with misguided intentions.
Over the years, billions of federal dollars have been spent on projects, sometimes at the urging of lobbyists, without any public record of who requested them, and frequently without debate.
The earmarking process is fundamentally flawed. No legislator, even one with the most noble of intentions, should have the power to anonymously spend millions of dollars in taxpayer money.
The proposed rules change in the House is straightforward. It specifies that when a bill comes to the floor that contains earmarks, it must be accompanied by a list identifying those earmarks, as well as the names of the members who requested them. The list would be publicly available for members, the media, and the general public to see.
It’s common sense: if you request a project, you ought to be willing to put your name on it and defend it. And if you aren’t willing to put your name on a project, you shouldn’t expect the American people to pay for it.
The new rules will bring earmarking out of the shadows and into the light of public scrutiny. They will bring sunshine and transparency into the earmarking process, resulting in greater accountability from legislators and greater public confidence in how tax dollars are being spent. It’s also likely to result in fewer earmarks, building on the progress already made in this area by leaders such as Chairman Lewis.
The new rules would apply comprehensively to all spending and tax bills that move through the House. Many have noted, accurately, that some of the most controversial earmarks have been carried on authorizing bills or tax bills, rather than appropriations bills. The proposed new rules will apply universally to all such bills, and will take effect in the House immediately upon passage. They will apply to all of the spending bills negotiated by the House and Senate that will go to the President this fall. They will also apply to the one uncompleted appropriations bill that has yet to pass the House, the annual Labor-Health and Human Services-Education spending bill (“Labor-HHS”), when it is ready for a vote.
The current earmark process is a relic of the old Democrat Congress ousted by Republicans in 1994. Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has made statements to the media suggesting today’s Democrats agree earmark reform is needed, even saying she would do away with earmarks altogether if it were up to her. But Ms. Pelosi has issued press releases touting nearly half a billion dollars worth of taxpayer-funded earmarks she has secured. The Hill recently reported the current Labor-HHS bill contains $7.9 million in earmarks for Ms. Pelosi’s district. And Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA), a senior Democrat member of the House Appropriations Committee, has publicly bragged that if he is ever put in charge of a House spending panel, he will “earmark the [expletive] out of it.”
Changing the culture of Washington starts with changing the culture of Congress. The American people want that culture to change. If adopted, the proposed earmark reform rules will be a small but significant sign that legislators are starting to get the message.
« Rep. Capuano's Newspeak for Censorship — Comments (5) | Coburn-Obama Passes — Comments (8) »
Name the Earmarkers 36 Comments (0 topical, 36 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
It’s common sense: if you request a project, you ought to be willing to put your name on it and defend it. And if you aren’t willing to put your name on a project, you shouldn’t expect the American people to pay for it.
Accountability is a good start. If each item of spending has to be defended, an awful lot of pork won't make it into law.
I have specific concerns about the proposed reform- if I understand correctly, this will make the earmarking process significantly more transparent, and this is undeniably a Good Thing(tm);, but will this make significant examination and meaningful debate on earmarks any more possible? Will my representative have a way of understanding an earmark made in the late night of committee in time to come to a reasoned position on it?
Too many earmarks are last-minute attachments to bills late in the dark of night on subcommittees, often hours before a scheduled up-or-down vote on the floor. Under these circumstances, I have no idea how my representative or his/her staff would have any opportunity to even understand, much less vote intelligently on all ramifications of such a process.
Until reform addresses this concern, I'm not clear that earmarking should be allowed at all.
In my view, congress' spending processes are the single greatest threat we face today. Great nations in history that have crumbled have nearly always done so from within- Rome wasn't sacked from without until it had exhausted its treasury. Until we have meaningful, reasoned, and considered debate around every tax dollar that is spent, I fear we will follow the same course.
A ship in the harbor is safe
but that is not what ships are built for
"congress' spending processes are the single greatest threat we face today."
It's shame it's had to come this far. But I'm still very cynical on Congress's true willingness to take the kind of hard nose actiopn on earmarks that most here would prefer to see.
The reality is that earmarks are one of the greatest self-serving tools available to congressmen to win votes and good will with constituents. Their voting records can be obscured or forgotten so long as they bring home the bacon...er, PORK.
It's one of the great ironies: watching congressmen claim to fight excessive spending while looking to secure tax payer money to fund local pork projects. The latter is what is most remembered and appreciated by the average voter...even self-descibed conservatives.
Don't tread on me.
being, as they say, in the details, if this bill survives out of the house unchanged, what will the final conference bill look like?
But the real question is: why haven't you done anything about mandatory spending? Pork (depending on your definition) is either a drop in the buck or it's the entire Federal budget. I think it's closer to the latter, and so I ask, why haven't you done anything about the real pork, the transfer of wealth from the taxpayers to hospitals and insurance companies.
--
The Presidency is a position more easily critiqued than attained.
or at least, there's no answer that you want to hear.
If you did, you might join me in ranks of the un-affiliated independent ranks of libertarianISH-ism. ;)
Don't tread on me.
I just think it's easier to have a positive effect arguing from the inside, as a "conservative", than arguing from the outside, as a "libertarian". Especially since the Libertarians are so into ideological purity, which makes a mockery of their theoretical individualism.
Uh oh, I feel a blog entry coming on.
--
The Presidency is a position more easily critiqued than attained.
I'm not into purity or a strict litmus test. I think the Libertarian Party (capital L) are self defeating freaks.
I'm more of a classical liberal and an "original liberal" in the spirit of the french revolution: anti-authortarian, anti-plutocratic, anti-elitist and anti-centralized power. The spirit lives on but the American liberals of today have perverted the spirit with a naivety and undeserved trust towards the broad-brushed benevolence of government action with no regard towards its unintended consequences and subsequent and never-ending layers of further action to correct these consequnces.
Luckily for the GOP, the Dems are too stupid to even pay lip service to the idea of combatting this never-ending wasteful sprawl even if they, like the GOP these last 6, 7 years, have nothing meaningful to truly correct it.
Don't tread on me.
I think you're a long way from home, trolling around for support for THOSE principles here, heh.
Yes, you'll get people quoting TJ, but just for the words, not for the ideas the man held.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
I'm not going there.
I was explaining my point of view to socrates. We're hardly is disagreement on the issues of this blog entry. To the contray, we agree 100%. I'm just a little more blunt in expressing cynicism. My beliefs and ideas on governance, fiscal policy and transparency are right at home here at Red State...I just perceive the political landscape differently and, in turn, the GOP. I'm much more favorable and sympathetic to the likes Ron Paul, Shadegg, the Conservative Study Group and the RLC. Sadly, and the state of Congress shows this, they do not seem to initiate the agenda these days. If they did, this blog entry wouldn't have happened.
Don't tread on me.
Now that we've solved:
Social Security
Fiscal policy
Overall government spending
Energy policy
Making tax cuts permanent
Permanently eliminating the death tax
War on Terror
Iraq
Sorry. While I know this is somewhat of a "big deal" institutionally, there are a host of infinitely more important matters that need to be dealt with that are collecting dust in the "In" box. Moreover, even if the dire predictions are untrue and the GOP holds both houses, each will be with diminished majorities (and the majority will be filled with persons frightened to even more inaction out of concern they "dodged the bullet" in 2006).
While it is a positive in the grand scheme...you can color me unimpressed.
"Everybody needs money! That's why they call it money!"
Earmarking and pork are heavily linked in the public's mind to corruption. Countering the notion that the Republican leadership is corrupt is essential electorally.
I understand that the quantity of money involved is pretty small, but it irritates, and it needs to be dealt with.
Also, there is the *fundamental* question of transparency here. Why bother with elections if you don't know what your representatives have done? There is simply no accountability.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
It's not about the pork. It's not a litmus test for a True Conservative. It's just the kind of process cleanup that was a big part of the Contract with America.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
However, this is a "forest for the trees" issue. I do not subscribe to the theory that we would be better off of the Dems/Libs took the Congress (and the White House) to "teach a lesson" to the nation (and the RINOs).
Take off the rose colored glassed. If the GOP loses control of these institutions in 2006 and 2008 respectively, it will truly be dark days for this country. And if you think the Dems/Libs will show any type of restraint in exacting political retribution against the new minority, you are naive.
Rules will be changed. The judicial filibuster will become sacrosanct. Bush will be impeached. The Congress will grind to a halt because of all the investigations. The positive changes to the judiciary will be lost.
It is a suicidal strategy.
"Everybody needs money! That's why they call it money!"
I don't understand. I'm anti-porkbusting as a priority, myself. I've written at length about it in the diaries.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
...running among some "true conservatives" that the movement would be better off if the GOP lost Congress so as to weed out the RINOs and return the GOP to a true "conservative" party.
I am as against pork as the next person, but the fact is it is a minor part of a 1.5 TRILLION budget.
A party is not effective in governance if they do not (and cannot) address the "big" issues.
If a party takes control of Congress and after 5 years of fighting a war, beset with significant fiscal issues (social security, overall budgeting), skyrocketing energy costs and a host of other MAJOR issues, and all that party has to show for its governance is a possible consensus to curtail (but not wholly eliminate) pork-barrel spending, and had done NOTHING else, that party would deserve to get tossed out of power.
We can complain and carp about the excesses and abuses of the Democrats while they held Congress, BUT THEY GOT THINGS DONE. Conservatives may not like what they did, but they did address the "big" issues.
"Everybody needs money! That's why they call it money!"
By that, I mean it's good to see people call a spade a spade.
Many here can hang their unwavering loyalty on the social rhetoric of many, the fiscal rhetoric of some and the fiscal ACTION of a very few. I gave up on that a long time ago.
The corrupt system is contagious. It makes sniveling bureaucrats out of even the most clean and well-menaing politician.
But, more importantly, the system serves those who are in power by obscuring and obfuscating misdeeds, corruption and blame.
FDR once said that the government will not do anything until the people MAKE THEM. We are far from that point, my friend.
The double standard applied to our politicans based on party will continue to keep us divided and conquered until fiscal policy becomes the defining the issue rather than a partisan branding borne from rhetoric on social grievances and obscure bumper stickers about freedom, honor and corruption.
Don't tread on me.
Of course they get things done. That's what progressives do: continue the perpetual march toward the People's Utopia.
That's why pork is so harmless: It's not part of the History that we're standing athwart to stop.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
You greatly overstate the importance of "pork". Certainly, the manner by which it is used (leverage for votes on other issues, currying favor with the electorate) is distasteful and politics would be better served without it. But consider this...
If a Congressman is going to earmark for the benefit of his district, why in the world would it matter to him/her that the whole world knows it? If anything, it will allow him/her to trumpet to the constituency that the bacon is being brought home. Do you think that Congressman Doe from the XXth District in California gives a rat's a** what the Washington Post, LA Times or Redstate has to say about the earmarks he puts in for his district? NO.
This is the epitome of "feel good" legislation.
"Everybody needs money! That's why they call it money!"
In fact, I'd say this Republican Congress has gotten one of the most important things done, the one thing that can affect every single pressing issue out there.
They cut taxes.
It would be nice if Congress could address issues more directly, but cutting taxes always works to the conservative's advantage in any case. Take Social Security reform, for instance. It would be nice for Congress to "fix" SS via "partial privatization" (I'd favor full privatization myself). The liberal option to "fix" SS is, of course, to dump more taxpayer money into it. The liberal option becomes less and less politically acceptable as long as tax rates remain low and there is less tax slush money in the hands of Congress.
Ironically, budget deficits, viewed in this light, work in our favor. It's harder to spend tons of money on boondoggle social welfare projects if the government's already running a deficit.
1) When were they cut?
2) Are they permanent?
The question "What have you done for me lately" comes readily to mind. The GOP has had control of the Executive Branch and Legislative Branch for all or most of the last 5 years. What have they done in the last two years?
Immigration Reform? Nope
SS? Nope (in fact, they stabbed GWB in the back on that one)
Energy policy? Barely...they had to greatly water it down.
My point is...you are the majority party...act like it...govern like it. They have not.
"Everybody needs money! That's why they call it money!"
I would rather have a gross incompetent in charge than an unapologetic traitor and constant liar. If those are my choices, I'll stick with the Republicans until the dems go away for good...
"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself
...Of being "clean as the new driven snow" or as transparent as clear glass...of you are ineffective and unable to deal with the "big" issues, you don't belong in a seat of governance.
Great campaign theme..."We're not corrupt, just incompetent."
"Everybody needs money! That's why they call it money!"
I am pleased as punch when I see congress doing something sensible. They need to be rewarded for actually doing the peoples business.
and for coming on Redstate Representative Boehner. Not knowing the House rules but having a dark view of the fertile minds of politicians I hope minimal opportunities will survive for end arounds, back doors,and escape hatchs, from the proposed legislation. Thanks and good luck, to you and for all of us.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
Maybe baseline budgeting will be next.
And while they're at it, maybe they can pass a budget that actually decreases federal spending, without cutting defense and homeland security. After that, how about passing the president's line item veyo proposal?
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman
Earmarks have more than quadrupled in recent years. It would have been better to never let it get this point but I'm glad (with elections on the horizon) that the leadership finally saw fit to go after the low hanging fruit.
Don't tread on me.
And thank you for your efforts in regards to earmarks. I look forward to seeing legislation passed by the Congress and signed by the president this fall.
May I ask, what is your and the Republican caucus' position on the Stop Overspending Act, introduced by Senator Gregg (R-NH) in the Senate this year? (summary)
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman
1st, do we know, and how can we assure, that this bill will not create a new layer of bureaucracy and Increase Federal spending despite the (admit it) limited reduction in pork-barrel spending? I'm all about more transparency of our government, but I am very against increasing the budget by creating that kind of worthless job.
2nd, Earmarks do Not increase Federal Spending. This bill will not reduce what each Senator/Congressman takes home to his state. What they do is Direct the money that was already granted to those states in the Budget toward specific projects.
IOW: Joe Senator is given $300Mil for his state in the Budget. With other bills over the course of he year, he Earmarks much of that toward specific projects.
That money is already going to be spent. Regardless.
Can we spend more time on limiting what is spent in the Budget instead?
"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself
Its great to see the ideas that Newt has been talking about and putting forward to Americans for years, finally gettting through to Congress!!
He doesnt get enough credit, just thought I would chime in to lend credit where it is due. Newt is a great and TRUE patriot!
THanks for you efforts Mr. Boehner. Transparency in government is a good thing, especially with respect to how it spends money. Pray you defeat the loophole exemption amendmendments that would make this legislation nearly meaningless. The bill does represent a meaningful change to the good...an accomplishment worth winning and which I personally appreciate.
John E.
Could not the same be accomplished simply by changing the rules within Congress so that No Bill or Amendment or whatever could be written without having the writer's name on it? Would that not do the same thing with a far lower cost in money?
"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself
...to pull the lever for the GOP.
http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/washington/index.ssf?/base/news-1/115822101...
By these actions, they are demonstrating that they do not represent our interests, but there own. PERIOD.
"Everybody needs money! That's why they call it money!"
Earmarks may not be the whole story on spending, but with the House bill and Coburn-Obama in the Senate, it looks like we may actually get legislation this year.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill