Yes, Congress Should Ban All Earmarks

It is always amusing to see how bad things can be spun into all that is good, just and right. The nation is seeing just such spin on the issue of earmarks — spending for those pet projects that members of Congress insert into bills, otherwise known as pork.

Though we rarely find ourselves agreeing with tea party favorite Sen. Jim DeMint, Republican of South Carolina, he is making a fine point on earmarks. He wants to ban them. House Republicans already have such a rule. The Senate does not, with both Republicans and Democrats in that body opposed. DeMint correctly looks at earmarks as a symbol of unchecked spending, the kind of spending that motivated a whole lot of voters earlier this month.

That's not a matter of spin. That simply is the way it is. There is a reason it's called pork and why this invokes in the public imagery of pigs at a trough.

This is not just a matter of perception. Though they give Congress credit for bringing transparency to the process recently, this is how the chairmen of the president's debt commission describe earmarks:

"In FY2010, Congress approved more than 9,000 earmarks costing taxpayers at least $16 billion. Earmarks are not competitively bid and are not subject to accountability metrics. Many of these earmarks are doled out by members of Congress for parochial interests and as currency with special interest groups. This type of spending is often used as a means to make pieces of legislation more palatable to specific members who would otherwise vote against them.

"Some examples of parochial earmark spending that can be seen as wasteful include $1.9 million for a Pleasure Beach Water Taxi Service in Connecticut, $1.8 million for swine odor and manure management research in Ames, Iowa, $900,000 for a program encouraging Oklahoma students to role play how to make tough choices as members of Congress, $380,000 for construction of recreation and fairgrounds in Kotzebue, Alaska, and $238,000 for the Polynesian Voyaging Society of Honolulu, Hawaii, which organizes sea voyages in ancient-style sailing canoes, among countless others."

DeMint's position is putting him at odds not just with Senate and House Democrats but with GOP senators who just increased their numbers in the alleged more deliberative body by convincing a great many voters that federal spending is out of whack.

So, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has turned on his spin machine.

He says that a ban on earmarks amounts to giving a "blank check" to a handy villain these days in some circles, President Barack Obama.

No, it's how the system was designed to work. The president, with the help of his federal agencies, prepares a budget. The two congressional appropriations committees then do a whole lot of heavy lifting on it.

McConnell also says that eliminating every earmark doesn't put a dent in federal spending. We think $16 billion is a lot of money.

Another argument: Members of Congress know the needs of their districts best. But this, too, turns the budget process on its head. It's a recipe for a representative with juice determining not only what's best for his or her district by way of pet projects but what's best for the districts of less influential members — getting nothing, in other words. A crapshoot.

Also worth considering: the role contributions from special interests play in greasing the way for pork. If banning earmarks has an impact here, that's reason enough for the prohibition.

DeMint is right. Think of it as a first post-election test. All of Congress should stand with him.

REPRINTED FROM THE MILWAUKEE JOURNAL SENTINEL.

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM