Earmark Toolkit

Editorials and Opinions

Print this page

May 2, 2007

Earmark pledge may be headache for McCaskill

State could lose out, but that's OK in the long run.

Springfield (Mo.) News-Leader

U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill has taken the anti-earmark pledge.

"I will not participate in the traditional earmark process," Missouri's junior senator told the News-Leader editorial board at a meeting earlier this year.
The statement might put McCaskill in a bit of a bind. Earmarks are local spending projects which generally are inserted into spending bills by senators or congressmen without a hearing and with no oversight of the general public. More often than not, these earmarks help special interests, including private businesses, in the elected representative's district.

Democrat McCaskill campaigned on reforming the wasteful and politically motivated process by which senators and congressmen traditionally bring home pork to their districts. But when it comes to re-election, senators are often reliant upon the support of those who have fed at the federal trough.

We hope McCaskill sticks to her word, and we intend to hold her to it. Perhaps this is how real reform of a broken federal system must happen: one senator at a time. In the short term, however, the results might not be good for Missourians.

According to a USA Today analysis of a White House budget office database of earmarks, Missouri ranked 13th in the nation with more than $432 million in earmarks in fiscal 2005, due in part to Sen. Christopher Bond's influence on the appropriations committee. Nationally there were 15,000 such earmarks worth $19 billion.

That's just plain offensive to taxpayers.

Still, some of those earmarks are worthy projects. Here in Springfield, we've seen our share, most notably money in recent budgets for the Jordan Valley Innovation Center, for instance. But we argue, as does McCaskill, that those earmarks which are of value should survive a hearing and go through a traditional budget process. And every earmark should include prominently the name of the senator or representative who is presenting it as an important expense.

So prepare yourselves, Missourians. If McCaskill won't participate in the traditional earmark process, that might mean the state takes a short-term financial hit. We think that will be worth it if the end game is real reform that involves Congress learning how to control its own spending.

Permalink