Clash Between Executive Branch, Congress Could Escalate Over Earmarks

It's All About the Money, Of Course, and Who is Controlling Purse Strings

September 7, 2008
By: Dave Rogers

Show me the money!

The line from the movie "Jerry Maguire" is what earmarks in the federal budget are all about.

It now appears that John McCain, the Republican candidate for President, would veto any earmark that came across his desk. At least that's what he promised in his speech accepting the GOP nomination.

However, there are earmarks and crooked earmarks with notches, as U.S. Rep. Dale F. Kildee pointed out to the Bay Area Chamber of Commerce last week.

Rep. Kildee, one of the most reasonable, bipartisan minded legislators in the nation, as far as we can determine, says earmarks constitute only about 1 (one) percent of the federal budget.

Would a President McCain really veto all earmarks? Even the ones with extremely necessary purposes like Henry Street reconstruction in Bay City, the new MBS Airport terminal, dredging the Saginaw River, etc.?

McCain, it seems, would throw out the baby with the bathwater, as the old saying goes. In an effort to make a public show of cowing a few corrupt legislators he would squash efforts of many honest, well-meaning representatives, including those of his own party, who see earmarking as serving their constituencies.

Earmarks are in the news even more because the Republican vice presidential candidate, Sarah Palin, was for a real big one before she was against it -- the so-called Alaska "bridge to nowhere."

It's not that Democrats Barack Obama and Joe Biden haven't said, and done, some really dumb things. No party has a monopoly on stupidity, or corruption.

But it seems that one of the U.S. Senate's shadiest characters, Sen. Ted Stevens, Alaska Republican, cooked up an earmark for millions of dollars for a bridge from the mainland to an island with 50 residents. And Gov. Sarah bought into it, at least at first, until it became unpopular even in Alaska. Yikes! Talk about flip-flopping like a seal out of water.

The Congressional Budget Office explains: "Earmarks are funds provided by the Congress for projects or programs where the congressional direction (in bill or report language) circumvents the merit-based or competitive allocation process, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the Executive Branch to properly manage funds. Congress includes earmarks in appropriation bills - the annual spending bills that Congress enacts to allocate discretionary spending - and also in authorization bills."

But Rep. Kildee explains why he favors earmarks: "How does a bureaucrat in Washington know that Bay City needs to have Henry Street rebuilt?"

Unless the bureaucratic office is more highly informed than one would expect, they wouldn't, he indicated. That's the role of Congress, and a darned important one at that, he told the Chamber.

You can access the entire federal budget as regards earmarks at http://earmarks/omb.gov.

"This database provides more information on earmarks in one place than has ever been available through the Federal Government. It is part of an effort to bring greater accountability and transparency to Federal spending. This step is also consistent with changes in the House Rules and Senate legislation during the 110th Congress, which requires more disclosure for earmarks."

What the whole exercise seems to indicate is that, should Mr. McCain become President, and that appears more likely all the time, a real battle will erupt over who is calling the shots on a small percentage of federal spending -- The President, or Congress.

I don't think anyone would denigrate Mr. McCain's efforts to control corruption in the federal government and Congress, especially since his party is no less guilty than scores of crooked Democrats.

But the idea of vetoing all earmarks makes just about as much sense as following Osama Bin Laden to the gates of hell, another idea he has voiced. A simple bomb in his bunker would work.

There seems to be a little too much theatrical drama in both those statements. And what the United States needs right now is leaders who use reason, not inflammatory rhetoric, to win votes. ###