Earmark Toolkit

Editorials and Opinions

Print this page

July 10, 2007

Edwards should reveal earmarks

Waco (Texas) Tribune-Herald

U.S. Rep. Chet Edwards should treat his constituents like adults and make his list of earmarks available for public inspection.

Although 74 of Edwards’ fellow representatives have made their entire lists of earmark requests available to the public, the Waco congressman refuses to join this transparency movement out of fear that it would confuse his constituents.

This appearance of “father-knows-best” paternalism underestimates the electorate’s maturity and intelligence.

Originally, “earmark” referred to the cuts or marks made in the ears of cattle to determine ownership.

In Congress, the term refers to revenue appropriations designated to be spent on specific projects.

Congressional earmarks come from individual members. To be approved so money can be drawn from the treasury, earmarks must be attached to an appropriations bill that becomes law.

Since there are always many more earmark requests than will be approved, a lot of horse trading can occur. The heads of appropriations committees and subcommittees have considerable power over earmarks.

Now that the Democrats have returned to power in Congress, Edwards is one of 11 appropriations subcommittee chairmen often referred to as “cardinals” due to their power over the budget-writing process.

While earmarks are usually made to fund home-state projects, they also can be offered on behalf of special-interest groups or government agencies attempting to skirt regulatory requirements.

Earmarks also are used to maintain party unity and inflate the power of appropriations leaders.

After campaigning against the Republicans’ “climate of corruption,” in January, the new Democrat-controlled Congress passed rules that members must attach their names to earmarks and certify that they have no financial interests in their earmarks.

That was a praiseworthy reform.

Since then, however, more than 32,000 earmark requests have been made. Democratic leaders have called for attaching earmarks to appropriations bills when they reach House-Senate conference committees where the process will go largely unseen.

Last month, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi called for dropping the word “earmark” and instead calling earmarks “legislatively directed spending.”

Edwards correctly points out that not all earmarks are evil. He’s right, of course. Even though earmarks circumvent normal budgetary procedures, they often fund important projects.

Edwards is willing to reveal his earmark requests after they are approved by a vote in the House, but not before. He fears public disclosure “would set up false expectations.”

For the public to trust government, elected representatives must trust the public.

Edwards should trust his constituents to not become confused or have their hopes dashed if he revealed his list of proposed earmarks.

Permalink