Earmark Toolkit

Editorials and Opinions

Print this page

June 8, 2007

Keep earmarks where public can eye them

Chicago Sun-Times

When they took office in January, Democrats made a great show of adopting rules to rein in Congress' rampant pork barrel practices, requiring that projects earmarked for federal dollars -- and their sponsors -- are well-publicized. The idea was that subjecting the projects to public scrutiny would weed out the worst abuses -- such as the infamous $223 million "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska. But Democrats in the House seem to be blowing their first opportunity to demonstrate they mean business.

Last week the AP reported that Rep. David Obey (D-Wis.), the head of the House Appropriations Committee, instructed his colleagues to keep spending bills free of earmarks until the fall, when House and Senate negotiators will craft the final bills. But adding the pork at such a late hour would prevent most lawmakers from challenging projects, because the House-Senate compromise bills can't be amended and debate is limited. Obey said the delay is necessary because his committee has been deluged with 36,000 earmark requests and has not had time to screen them due to more pressing matters, including the Iraq war spending bill. He said he wanted to make "doggone sure" every project receives the committee's scrutiny and said he remains committed to the new rules and to cutting earmarks in half.

Obey may turn out to be the fierce opponent of pork that he says he is. But it would be a mistake for him to make the process less transparent. "This is not more sunlight," said Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.). "This is actually keeping earmarks secret until it's too late to do anything about it." And other critics take issue with Obey's contention that the committee is in the best position to weed out bad earmarks. "Who appointed him judge and jury of earmarks?" asked Tom Schatz,president of Citizens Against Government Waste.

For an example of why public scrutiny is important, look no further than a report in Thursday's New York Times. It described how Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), the sponsor of that infamous "bridge to nowhere," slipped a provision into a 2006 spending bill that directed $10 million to a road that couldn't be much further from Alaska -- in Fort Myers, Fla. The local congressman said he didn't even know about the earmark. The road will benefit a real estate developer who helped raise money for Young's campaign.

That's the kind of pork that transparency would likely eliminate. More openness is supposed to make lawmakers propose only those earmarks that are easy to defend, or force them to withdraw projects that don't stand up to public scrutiny. If the House Democratic plan does anything to reduce public scrutiny, then it represents a step backward in the battle against pork.

Permalink