Revival of earmarks could well end badly

WHEN Democrats take over the U.S. House next month, one of the changes the partisan shift may bring is a new attitude toward congressional “earmarking,” a practice in which legislators direct money to specific projects. That may be an invitation for trouble.

Earmarking scandals fueled a “culture of corruption” narrative that played a role in Republicans losing control of the House in the 2006 elections, which led the GOP to severely curtail earmarking when the party regained House control in 2011. Now, Democratic lawmakers indicate they may again open the earmark spigot.

When asked about earmarks by The Washington Examiner, Rep. Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, who will be majority whip, said, “I hope they come back. I was against them ever leaving.”

Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., who will be majority leader, has also spoken in favor of earmarks, as have other prominent Democratic lawmakers.

The argument for congressional earmarking is that its absence puts federal agencies in charge of many spending decisions. Democrats don’t favor leaving an executive branch headed by President Trump with increased spending power, but some Republican lawmakers have also objected to yielding that power to the executive branch. Oklahoma’s Sen. Jim Inhofe of Tulsa is one of the most prominent GOP voices in favor of earmarking.

Yet throughout much of the nation’s history, earmarking was virtually nonexistent. And when lawmakers did embrace it, the results often undermined the cause of good government.

For years, earmarking was relatively constrained. The 1970 defense appropriations bill included only a dozen earmarks. That figure rose to 62 by 1980, but that pales in comparison with the 2,879 earmarks contained in the 2006 defense appropriations bill. The Congressional Research Service found the number of congressional earmarks surged from 3,000 in 1996 legislation to more than 15,000 by 2005.

Once earmarking hit those insane levels, it became an open invitation for corruption. Former Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham, R-Calif., was convicted of taking bribes in exchange for requesting specific earmarks. Former Rep. Chaka Fattah, D-Pa., was sent to prison because of an earmark-related scandal. Others avoided prison but not the appearance of impropriety. Former Rep. Charlie Taylor, R-N.C., directed earmark spending to projects near his personal properties and former Rep. Corrine Brown, D-Fla., directed earmarks to a charity run by her daughter.

While earmark supporters argue lawmakers know the needs of their districts better than federal agency officials, a 2007 report by the Department of Transportation Inspector General found earmarks diverted funding from higher-priority projects to lower-priority projects. When money went to a pricey “bridge to nowhere,” it was diverted from other projects that would have provided far greater benefit.

The process became so sloppy that the amount of money earmarked occasionally exceeded the amount lawmakers authorized for spending.

Lawmakers insist they’ve learned their lesson and such abuses will be a thing of the past. Yet one wonders: If Congress operated with few or no earmarks as recently as the 1980s, why is it they can’t do the same today?