Federal Pork – An Intervention
The number of earmarks in federal transportation bills:
1982 – 10
1987 – 152 (earning a veto)
1991 – 538
1998 – 1,800
2005 – (drum roll, please) . . . 6,371
It’s not an appropriations process. It’s a cry for help.
In pork-barrel politics, little compares with the opportunity that highway bills present Congressmen and Senators. Gas-tax money is apportioned to states based on formula. But, forwarding the money without some flare does little to help to the political fortunes of Congress-types. So, instead of the money being spent on the priorities of transportation departments and commissions, Congress-types specify that portions of the money go to patronage-based projects (e.g., the “Bridge to Nowhere”). Press releases, ribbon cuttings, and robust chest pounding accompany the earmarks.
Early in his tenure, President Bush declared, “"Across the spectrum of transportation programs, congressional earmarks undercut the [Transportation] Department's ability to fund projects that have successfully proved their merits." Later, he added, “However, undercutting meritorious projects is not necessarily a bad thing.” Okay. He didn’t add that last part. He merely signed a transportation bill with 6,371 earmarks.
Nothing indicates that Congress will end the bender. So, I propose an intervention.
SB 134 (Transportation Funding Amendments) makes it illegal for Utah to spend money that has been porked out of formula-based money. In other words, when a member of Congress specifies that X has to be funded with Utah’s share, the money disappears. So, Utah’s delegation simply should avoid the pork.
As I described previously, Congress-types and the local jurisdictions that are good at the game don’t like the bill (and might muster the collective mojo to defeat it). However, my Mayor, Dan McArthur, came up with a good compromise that the cities back. The compromise is that the feds can specify projects, so long as those projects are included on Utah’s list of priorities (the State Transportation Implementation Plan (the “STIP”)).
Our Congress-types still could specify a project that is not on the STIP. By doing that, they would, in effect, be daring Utah to not add it to the STIP and, thereby, kiss the money goodbye. I'm okay with that. That situation would draw light to the earmark. People from the area that would receive the money could be invited to testify – as could people from the areas that have had their higher-priority projects delayed by the earmark. Because pork is supposed to only have beneficiaries, not victims, this just might work to slow down Congressional binging.
With my agreement to amend the bill (to add the STIP provision) and with the cities' resulting support, the bill passed committee today unanimously (link to the audio). I discuss the bill with the association of counties Thursday morning, to enlist their support.
1982 – 10
1987 – 152 (earning a veto)
1991 – 538
1998 – 1,800
2005 – (drum roll, please) . . . 6,371
It’s not an appropriations process. It’s a cry for help.
In pork-barrel politics, little compares with the opportunity that highway bills present Congressmen and Senators. Gas-tax money is apportioned to states based on formula. But, forwarding the money without some flare does little to help to the political fortunes of Congress-types. So, instead of the money being spent on the priorities of transportation departments and commissions, Congress-types specify that portions of the money go to patronage-based projects (e.g., the “Bridge to Nowhere”). Press releases, ribbon cuttings, and robust chest pounding accompany the earmarks.
Early in his tenure, President Bush declared, “"Across the spectrum of transportation programs, congressional earmarks undercut the [Transportation] Department's ability to fund projects that have successfully proved their merits." Later, he added, “However, undercutting meritorious projects is not necessarily a bad thing.” Okay. He didn’t add that last part. He merely signed a transportation bill with 6,371 earmarks.
Nothing indicates that Congress will end the bender. So, I propose an intervention.
SB 134 (Transportation Funding Amendments) makes it illegal for Utah to spend money that has been porked out of formula-based money. In other words, when a member of Congress specifies that X has to be funded with Utah’s share, the money disappears. So, Utah’s delegation simply should avoid the pork.
As I described previously, Congress-types and the local jurisdictions that are good at the game don’t like the bill (and might muster the collective mojo to defeat it). However, my Mayor, Dan McArthur, came up with a good compromise that the cities back. The compromise is that the feds can specify projects, so long as those projects are included on Utah’s list of priorities (the State Transportation Implementation Plan (the “STIP”)).
Our Congress-types still could specify a project that is not on the STIP. By doing that, they would, in effect, be daring Utah to not add it to the STIP and, thereby, kiss the money goodbye. I'm okay with that. That situation would draw light to the earmark. People from the area that would receive the money could be invited to testify – as could people from the areas that have had their higher-priority projects delayed by the earmark. Because pork is supposed to only have beneficiaries, not victims, this just might work to slow down Congressional binging.
With my agreement to amend the bill (to add the STIP provision) and with the cities' resulting support, the bill passed committee today unanimously (link to the audio). I discuss the bill with the association of counties Thursday morning, to enlist their support.
posted by steve u. at 2/04/2009
Subscribe
4 Comments:
Thank you for your willingness to combat federal pork.
What's to prevent actual practice from devolving into the state adding pork $ to its priority list? Are our ethical standards so high we can truly reject "free" money? I realize this is a bit pessimistic, and I think the additional public scrutiny may help, but I'm not wholly convinced anything will change in the long run.
My real frustration is I feel this solution attacks the branches of the problem, and not the root.
Thanks, BenJoe.
Tom, because of the Supremacy Clause, a State can't tell the feds what to do in this arena. So, it doesn't get at the roots. But, I believe this is a good way for a State to discourage federal pork and to shine a light on the growing practice.
What do our two Senators and three reps in Washington say?
Sounds good to me
Sen. U.: I understand the Supremacy Clause, but your answer suggests we have no remedy, and our only option is to bend over and take it. (It not only sidesteps my other questions, but it also avoids answering why Congress just wouldn't allocate it as a "shall spend" rather than providing earmarked money.)
The state certainly doesn't have a bully pulpit when it comes to the Feds, but if the issue is so uniformly perceived as a problem, surely the national associations of state legislatures, the national association of governors, or even the political party administration within the state could provide useful influence. Sure, it's harder, but would it be more effective?
The more I think about your proposed bill, the more I like it (really!), but I keep coming back to the following hurdle: When push comes to shove, I don't believe Utah will have the backbone to tell the Feds that the money they've earmarked for an 8-lane freeway connecting Etna and Gunlock (hypothetically) won't be spent because not only do we not want or need the road, but we also don't need the "economic stimulus" and "job creation" the project would provide.
I'm back to my original point: the additional public scrutiny may help, but I'm not convinced anything will change in the long run.
<< Home