Earmarks? Tone- deaf
Adding slime doesn’t drain the swamp
“What they’re really saying to voters is, ‘ If we can’t get paid off with our pet projects, then we really can’t work on your behalf together.’”
— Claire McCaskill
LEAVE IT to Missouri’s senior senator to tell it with the bark off. In one sentence, Claire McCaskill, D- Good Judgment, put to shame all those lawmakers who see an opportunity in a new administration to bring back earmarks. And with them, greasy palms, payoffs and corruption. You know, the way Washington has always worked.
That is, that was the way Washington always worked until just a few years ago, when a Republican- controlled U. S. House and Senate banned earmarks on legislation. With the help of Democrats like Claire McCaskill.
Before that long- overdue reform, lawmakers could add language to bills requiring federal agencies to spend suchandsuch amount of money back home in their districts. Without regard to whether the money would be best spent there. Without those pesky cost- analysis reports. Just earmark the bill and— voila!— money flows.
So what is the argument for bringing back earmarks? Behind closed doors ( of course), some lawmakers say earmarks provide an incentive to “overcome gridlock.” And make it easier for lawmakers to seek common ground. And work together.
Why sure! Any bribe will make a body see things in a different way. If, say, a lawmaker was being iffy on a request from the Parks Service, maybe a new fire station or community center in his hometown would make him see things in a new light. Or maybe if his everloving conscience was making too much noise on a spending bill, a new emergency operations center for a sheriff or three back in the district would quiet that distraction. It’s not illegal. It’s politics! You scratch my back, I’ll watch yours. And look at the massive campaign materials these things can provide! Photo- ops galore!
For the record, the two political parties don’t fit neatly on one side of this issue or the other. There are plenty of Republicans who’d like to see earmarks make a comeback. And plenty of Democrats like Claire McCaskill who don’t. Thankfully, newly re- elected Speaker Paul Ryan has quietly cautioned his party on the matter. He should do so more publicly. The new administration has promised to drain the swamp. It’ll be hard to do that by introducing more slime.
For years, the earmarks way was akin to “sprinkling fairy dust in a back room,” Sen. McCaskill told the papers. “There was no consideration of merit. No cost- benefit analysis. The public didn’t even know what projects members had been asked to fund nor how they made the decisions . . . . Now how bold is this message after the election? I mean, talk about filling the swamp . . . .”
Cost- benefit analysis? It’s as if Sen. McCaskill and others of her thinking understand that this is taxpayer money, not “just” taxpayer money. And it doesn’t come from thin air, but from the pockets of all of us. And should be respected by our Washington betters, not used to push political careers back home.
Thankfully, the opposition to bringing back earmarks is a bipartisan issue. At least when our reps in Washington are on the record. Let’s keep it that way. And keep the ban on earmarks.