What if Wasteful Spending Had No Place to Hide?

By Senator Russ Feingold and Congressman Paul Ryan

Janesville Gazette
May 1, 2007

Everyone has seen stories about members of Congress pushing for expensive pet projects, like more than $200 million for a bridge to nowhere in Alaska, or $2 million to refurbish a Vulcan Statue in Alabama, that make their way into law. These projects are earmarked for funding, whether or not they deserve it, and then, like stowaways, they are slipped into a much bigger spending bill, hitching a ride to the President’s desk.

Presidents of both parties are then faced with only two options: to sign or veto the entire bill. But what if there was another way to remove those earmarks, so that they could be considered separately from the rest of the bill? What if wasteful spending had no place to hide?

We think it’s time to bring these earmarks out into the open, and let Congress consider them on their merits. Some projects earmarked for funds may well be worthy of support. But many of these provisions could not justify themselves if they had to go through the normal channels in Congress – going before the appropriate committees, and being put to a separate vote.

Over the years, the spending on earmarks has been getting worse and worse. By one estimate, in 2004 more than $50 billion in earmarks were passed. There is no excuse for a system that allows that kind of wasteful spending year after year.

Since both of us were born and raised in Janesville, we understand our state’s long tradition of fiscal responsibility, and we are convinced that this system has to change. So together we are proposing something new – we like to call it the Janesville line-item veto. Under our proposal, the President would be able to cancel one or more earmark provisions in a law he signs, and send those provisions back to Congress to be considered separately. In order for the President’s cancellations to actually take place, Congress would need to pass a new bill approving the cancellations. If either the House or the Senate failed to pass the new bill, then the President’s proposed cancellations would be dead and the earmarks would survive.

The approach we are taking isn’t exactly what either of us wants. It is a compromise, but on the whole, it gets at our shared concern about the earmark spending that has exploded in recent years.

It also strikes the right balance between the power of Congress and the power of the executive branch. Under this proposal, the President may only propose to cancel earmarks. He cannot rewrite Medicare law, or large sections of the tax code, or the Farm Bill, or entire discretionary programs.

Our proposal is similar in some ways to a line-item veto, although the President has less authority under our approach. There have been some efforts in Congress to reform earmarks recently, and our effort would complement those by acting as one more barrier to wasteful spending being signed into law.

For too long, wasteful spending has gotten a free ride at the taxpayers’ expense. Our proposal would put an end to expensive projects being hidden inside bigger bills and avoiding the regular legislative process. Earmarks deserve the same scrutiny that other legislation gets, and if they measure up, they can be signed into law. But if not, then we need to have a way to take these earmarks – these provisions being stowed away in other legislation -- and throw them overboard. Our proposal can move us closer to a system that taxpayers deserve – one that respects the public dollar, and pays more attention to fiscal responsibility than it does to pet projects.



Home | Statements Index