This little piggy

In my recent post about the fight against earmarks in the Omnibus bill, I identified three types of spending that could be in that bill (or any other appropriations bill):

1) What we can call “normal” appropriations which appropriate money for ongoing government operations. Through this, for example, the Federal Department of Transportation is given a certain amount of money which it can spend directly or allocate to State Departments of Transportation as provided in existing laws and guidelines. This type of spending accounts for about 98% of the Omnibus bill.

2) Non-pork earmarks which appropriate money for a specific purpose that can reasonably be claimed to benefit the country as a whole or to benefit people across the country. I have not seen any claims that there are these types of earmarks in the Omnibus bill although there may be.

3) Pork-barrel earmarks which appropriate money for a specific purpose that can not reasonably be claimed to benefit the country as a whole or to benefit people across the country. Instead, pork-barrel earmarks benefit mostly a particular State or Congressional district or a particular interest group whose benefit is not also a benefit nationally. Presumably the entire $7.7 billion worth of earmarks that so many people are inveighing against consists of these pork-barrel projects.

I also identified four arguments that could be used to oppose non-pork earmarks and normal appropriations:

1) There is no true benefit to the spending.

2) The cost of the spending outweighs the benefit to be derived.

3) The benefit outweighs the costs but we simply cannot afford it.

4) Federal spending should be cut, period.

If we now turn to pork-barrel earmarks these same four arguments could be used to oppose them but it is usually the first argument - no true benefit - that is employed, primarily by pointing out how ridiculous a particular earmark is or at least sounds. In a fabulous stroke of luck the Omnibus bill contains some literal pork we can use as an example of how the arguments about these types of earmarks usually go:

- Congressman introduces pork-barrel earmark; for example, $1.791 million for swine odor and manure management in Iowa

- Fiscal watchdog groups, the entire opposing party, and every media outlet outside of his own State take him to task for it

- The Congressman and others who understand the need for the requested project explain why is is important; often the explanation is within hailing distance of reasonable (in the case of swine manure it is more than reasonable) and even if it’s not supporters can always point out that this earmark is no more preposterous than other earmarks (water taxis, tattoo removal, etc.)

- The discussion degenerates into an argument over how reasonable the pork-barrel earmark really is and basically becomes, “Is too, Is not”.

If we’re really lucky we eventually get to the “we cannot afford it” argument. Although we should then be able to rationally balance the urgency of the proposed project against the financial condition of the government and the country this is difficult with pork-barrel earmarks because they always look crucial to the proposers and usually look trivial to the opposition.

So much for how things usually go. There are also three other arguments that can be marshaled against pork-barrel earmarks. First, the claim that earmarks are corrupt. This argument is laid out nicely here:

Earmarking in and of itself is not corrupt, although McCain and other critics point to a series of earmark-related scandals that resulted in the prosecution of Congress members. But it does give powerful lawmakers a way to fund projects that they deem priorities without going through the normal appropriations procedure. Some high-powered lobbyists actively seek earmarks for clients, and the lack of public scrutiny fuels fears of shady deals.

In other words, pork-barrel earmarks create the opportunity for sin. This is an argument that makes sense generally but except in the most egregious cases it is difficult to levy a charge of corruption against a Congressman who is requesting something that looks worthwhile. (Hence the frequent reliance on mockery.) In the case of the Omnibus bill, opponents were not successful even in what looks like it may well be an egregious case.

In short, the corruption argument makes sense if you understand that part of keeping a system honest is not providing situations that allow - much less encourage - dishonesty. But it is a hard charge to make stick on a case by case basis and it never plays as well as pointing and laughing.

Second, pork-barrel earmarks are illogical. Recall Weisman’s claim from the prior post:

It’s not that the Congress is piling on additional spending. It’s just carving out the spending that would already be there.

It used to be that a huge pot of money would just go to, say, the Department of Transportation. Then the Department of Transportation would farm that out to State Departments of Transportation or local road authorities and they would decide how to spend the money. It simply would give the bureaucracy more power in deciding how to spend that money.

There are two problems with this. For one, I’m not sure I believe it. Weisman is claiming that the normal appropriations process decides that Bill X will appropriate some amount of money to the Federal Department of Transportation which will in turn give whatever amount is legal and appropriate to the New Jersey State Department of Transportation. One of New Jersey’s Senators decides he wants a pork-barrel earmark of, say, $10 million to repave Route 3. The Appropriations Committee pulls out the White-Out, reduces the Federal Department of Transportation’s funding by $10 million, and slaps on a little sticky note that reads: Give NJ $10M less than you planned. Color me skeptical.

Even if the process really does work this way, I question whether a Congressman sitting in Washington is really better able to prioritize the use of transportation funds in his State than is the State’s Department of Transportation which, presumably, gets paid to know what needs doing now and what can be delayed. According to The Economist, this is McCain’s:

really basic argument: no spending bill should have earmarks for spending that would be better doled out by local authorities.

These two aspects work together to provide a compelling argument. If the amount of money going to a State does not increase due to earmarks then give all the State money in the usual legal manner and let the appropriate State agency decide how to spend it. If earmarks do mean a State gets more money than it would through the normal appropriations process then that is not fair to States which are not in a position to slide earmarks into an appropriations bill. Which brings us to the third argument that can be made against pork-barrel earmarks.

The country as a whole should not be paying for projects that totally or disproportionately benefit a single State. Swine manure management is almost certainly crucial for Iowa but taxpayers in New Jersey shouldn’t have to pay for it. Volcano management is a big deal for Alaska but taxpayers in Iowa shouldn’t have to pay for it. Fruit fly research is essential for Hawaii but taxpayers in Alaska shouldn’t have to pay for it. Preserving part of Old Tiger Stadium is near and dear to every Detroiter’s heart but taxpayers in Hawaii shouldn’t have to pay for it. And College Avenue in New Brunswick, New Jersey, may well need a redesign but why on earth should taxpayers in Michigan pay for it?

Projects that benefit one State should not be funded by taxpayers across the country. I would go further and argue that even projects that benefit multiple States should not necessarily be funded by the entire country. Swine manure management can become a joint venture of Iowa, North Carolina, and Minnesota; together they account for more than 50% of hog revenues in the United States (or did in 2004). Alaska could join with States in the Pacific Northwest to study volcanoes and I imagine California would have as much interest in fruit flies as Hawaii. (I’m afraid Michigan and New Jersey will have to go it alone.)

The argument that taxpayers across the country should not pay for one State’s benefit seems to me to be a matter of basic fairness but since most Congressmen utilize earmarks to benefit their districts, it’s one they may be reluctant to make. More dangerously, this argument has implications for more government spending than just earmark pork-barrel projects. Let’s go back to Weisman’s point: if a State is going to get that money anyhow, why not let the Congressional delegation have some say in how it’s spent? If you accept that one State’s tax dollars should not pay for another State’s sole benefit, the answer is that the premise of the question is invalid: the State should not be getting that money in the first place.

Why is the Federal Department of Transportation handing money to the States? Why should taxpayers in Nebraska pay to maintain the roads in Texas? One could make a reasonable argument that the Federal government should maintain the interstate road system but I cannot imagine a reasonable argument that work on local streets is properly a Federal task. And even the interstate system argument is weak. If you’ve seen the freeways around Houston lately, you realize they have little to do with national evacuation routes and much to do with commuting to work.

When I discussed non-pork earmarks and normal appropriations, I argued that the best way to oppose increases in those was by arguing in favor of a small Federal government. Similarly, I believe the best way to oppose pork-barrel earmarks is by arguing that States should themselves fund the projects which benefit them, not expect the rest of the country to do so. The two ideas complement each other: a smaller Federal government means less Federal spending which means lower taxes which means the States can - if their residents so desire - increase State taxes to fund projects formerly supported by the Federal government whether through normal appropriations or earmarks.

In the end all this comes down to a matter of principles or perhaps ideology. Do you believe that huge government spending, regardless of the impact on the deficit, is the solution to an economy in crisis or do you favor a bare minimum of government assistance? Do you believe taxpayers in one State should pay for projects that benefit taxpayers in another State or do you believe that if a project is really crucial for a State then its own taxpayers will - and should - fund it? And, ultimately, do you favor a large, strong Federal government and weak, dependent States or do you favor a system closer to “dual federalism” in which:

the national and state governments are split into their own spheres, and each is supreme in its respective sphere ... [and] ... there are certain limits placed on the federal government.

There are a number of reasons opponents of the Omnibus bill (and the Stimulus bill before it) have had trouble gaining traction, including Obama’s popularity and the general feeling of fear over the economy. Furthermore, opponents allowed themselves to be distracted by the 2% of spending contained in earmarks.* However, I believe the fact that opponents either do not possess or cannot convincingly articulate a coherent political philosophy in opposition to these bills is a huge part of their problem.

Without basic principles about Federal spending and State’s responsibilities (and, yes, rights) arguments about all spending - normal appropriations, non-pork earmarks, and pork-barrel projects - devolve into “Is not, is too” squabbles over whether or not the spending is needed. This results in the opponents looking wholly negative with no alternative to offer. With those basic principles those saying “no” can offer a different view of the right path instead of just an insistence that we’re on the wrong path which is - let’s face it - less than helpful.

-----

*There are some indications opponents are increasingly focusing on the size of the bill as a whole and not just on the earmarks. One of the problems of focusing on earmarks - besides not seeing the forest for the trees - was that since both Democrats and Republicans indulge in pork-barrel earmarks it was difficult for either party to present itself as a plausible opponent of earmarks.

This is not an insurmountable problem incidentally. As long as earmarks exist any Congressmen who does not attempt to bring home the bacon is disadvantaging the people in his district vis-a-vis people in other districts as well as disadvantaging himself in elections. Thus the appropriate stance for someone who benefits from earmarks but nonetheless opposes them would be that he wants the system to change but until it does he will continue to do his best for his constituency.

Parenthetically, I’ve always thought the handling of earmarks was one of the great failures of the Republican Presidential campaign. John McCain’s “no earmarks” message was undercut by the vast number of earmarks from Alaskan Congressmen. Sarah Palin - or her handlers - tried to counter this by citing Palin’s opposition to specific earmarks like the Bridge to Nowhere. Even leaving aside whether Palin opposed the Bridge in a timely fashion, this was the wrong argument. The right argument was that as long as earmarks exist any state that does not get them is disadvantaging its own residents and that Palin would have been remiss as governor in doing so.

*****

Sources and reading:

Coburn Highlights Billions of Wasteful Spending in Generational Theft Act AKA Senate Stimulus - As the title says, Coburn is talking about the Stimulus bill not the Omnibus bill but this paragraph is in line with my argument about basic fairness in transferring national money to individual States:

We are transferring the irresponsibility we have had over the last 6 years in this Congress--or last 8 years in this Congress--to the States because what we are telling them is: You do not have to be fiscally responsible. You do not have to live within your means because Uncle Sam is going to bail you out. That is what this bill says. We are going to bail them out.

So for the States, such as my State, that were smart enough and wise enough to create a rainy day fund and live within their means, we are going to ask all the taxpayers of all the States that have done that to pay for the exorbitant spending and growth in Government in all the rest of the States.

Do read the whole thing. It’s a fabulous rant.


Obama’s Stunted Economic Stimulus - In an article which approves of a large stimulus, Robert J. Samuelson argues that Obama’s Stimulus bill doesn’t measure up. Part of the reason:

Yet, the stimulus package offers only modest relief [for state and local governments]. ... Congress might have done more by providing large, temporary block grants to states and localities and letting them decide how to spend the money. Instead, the stimulus provides most funds through specific programs. There's $90 billion more for Medicaid, $12 billion for special education, $2.8 billion for various policing programs. More power is being centralized in Washington.

In other words, much stimulus funding to the States is, well, earmarked.

Forests, trees, and earmarks

The battle over the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009
(H.R. 1105, hereinafter “the Omnibus bill”) is shaping up as a fight against earmarks. Considering that the Omnibus bill has a price tag of $410 billion and the earmarks amount to about $7.7 billion*, this seems a clear case of missing the forest for the trees. It’s true the earmarks make a handy stick with which to beat President Obama as John McCain did when he quoted this pledge by then-candidate Obama:

We need earmark reform and when I'm president, I will go line by line to make sure we're not spending money unwisely.

It’s also true that the earmarks make much more interesting theater than the rest of the bill. How can funding for the humdrum, day-to-day aspects of government compete with earmarks like those for Swine Manure Research, Tattoo Removal, and preserving parts of Historic Tiger Stadium. Whatever the political reality, however, the financial reality is that eliminating all the earmarks would still leave a massive spending bill and I think the size of the bill as a whole is what deserves attention.

Having said that, I must nonetheless confess that I was mesmerized by the list of earmarks and then by the realization that while the word “earmark” was thrown around quite freely I wasn’t entirely sure what it meant. So I decided to poke (heh, heh) around a little and see exactly what earmarks are, whether they are always a bad thing, and - when they are bad - how to most effectively argue against them.

Wikipedia’s definition of “earmark” seems somewhat out of date but the relevant portions read:

The federal Office of Management and Budget defines earmarks as funds provided by Congress for projects or programs where the congressional direction (in bill or report language) circumvents Executive Branch merit-based or competitive allocation processes, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the Executive Branch to manage critical aspects of the funds allocation process. [snip]

Earmarking differs from the broader appropriations process, defined in the Constitution, in which Congress grants a yearly lump sum of money to a Federal agency. These moneys are allocated by the agency according to its legal authority and internal budgeting process. With an earmark, Congress has given itself the ability to direct a specified amount of money from an agency's budget to be spent on a particular project, without the Members of the Congress having to identify themselves or the project.

Obviously the anonymity aspect of earmarks has long since gone by the board. What’s important here is that instead of the Legislative Branch just handing money to the Executive Branch to spend in accordance with existing laws and procedures, the Legislative Branch gets into the nitty-gritty and directs specific money to go to specific projects. So, for example, instead of the Federal Department of Transportation simply getting $1 million more this year than last to spend as it believes proper and legal, Congress gives the Department $1 million and says, “Spend it on this particular project.”

Since “earmark” is often used interchangeably with “pork-barrel project” or “pork”, I checked Wikipedia’s definition of “pork” also (emphasis mine):

Typically, "pork" involves funding for government programs whose economic or service benefits are concentrated in a particular area but whose costs are spread among all taxpayers. Public works projects, certain national defense spending projects, and agricultural subsidies are the most commonly cited examples. [snip]

Pork-barrel projects, or earmarks, are added to the federal budget by members of the appropriation committees of United States Congress. This allows delivery of federal funds to the local district or State of the appropriation committee member, often accommodating major campaign contributors. To a certain extent, a member of Congress is judged by their ability to deliver funds to their constituents. The Chairman and the ranking member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations are in a position to deliver significant benefits to their States.

Does this mean earmarks and pork are the same thing? Not necessarily. Consider this discussion from a 2008 NPR show:

BOB GARFIELD: But [earmarking] is, historically and ultimately, a legitimate legislative mechanism, isn't it?

JONATHAN WEISMAN: Absolutely. You know, the Iraq Study Group, that bipartisan group, was earmark. It was created as [LAUGHS] a little, what we would call a pet project by a congressman from Virginia, Republican Frank Wolf. Most research into breast cancer is done through earmarks.

Earmarks are the method by which members of Congress can exact policy. [snip]

Well, let's put it this way. If you didn't do these earmarks you’re probably going to have little to no effect on the federal budget. It’s not that the Congress is piling on additional spending. It’s just carving out the spending that would already be there.

It used to be that a huge pot of money would just go to, say, the Department of Transportation. Then the Department of Transportation would farm that out to State Departments of Transportation or local road authorities and they would decide how to spend the money. It simply would give the bureaucracy more power in deciding how to spend that money.

There’s a balance here to be struck between the prerogative of Congress and the ability of bureaucrats, basically, to set their own their priorities.

As Weisman makes clear, there is a distinction between an earmark and a pork-barrel project. An earmark is a targeted expenditure outside the normal Executive Branch spending guidelines. If it benefits solely (Old Tiger Stadium) or mostly (swine manure) one State, it’s pork. If it benefits the nation as a whole (the Iraq Study Group) or people across the country (breast cancer research), it’s not pork. This is not cut and dried, of course. An earmark that funds breast cancer research can look pretty porcine if all the funds go to one research center in one Congressional district. Conversely, an apparent pork-barrel project may initially benefit only one State but have clear benefits for the entire country. Military bases are the classic example of this: a particular State benefits from the construction and then from the presence of military consumers but the entire country benefits from the military and the bases have to go somewhere. Despite occasional fuzziness, however, I think the distinction between earmarks and pork is useful. Why? Because it tells us we have three different types of spending in the Omnibus bill:

1) What we can call “normal” appropriations which appropriate money for ongoing government operations. Through this, for example, the Federal Department of Transportation is given a certain amount of money which it can spend directly or allocate to State Departments of Transportation as provided in existing laws and guidelines. This type of spending accounts for about 98% of the Omnibus bill.

2) Non-pork earmarks which appropriate money for a specific purpose that can reasonably be claimed to benefit the country as a whole or to benefit people across the country. I have not seen any claims that there are these types of earmarks in the Omnibus bill although there may be.

3) Pork-barrel earmarks which appropriate money for a specific purpose that can not reasonably be claimed to benefit the country as a whole or to benefit people across the country. Instead, pork-barrel earmarks benefit mostly a particular State or Congressional district or a particular interest group whose benefit is not also a benefit nationally. Presumably the entire $7.7 billion worth of Omnibus bill earmarks that so many people are inveighing against consists of these pork-barrel projects.

In terms of whether they should be opposed and if so how, I don’t see any difference between non-pork earmarks and normal appropriations. They are both spending that can be reasonably claimed to benefit the entire nation. If someone wants to oppose instances of these types of spending, there are three obvious arguments he can use: there is no true benefit; the cost outweighs the benefit; or the benefit outweighs the cost but we simply cannot afford it. The first is usually in the eye of the beholder while the second should be calculable but often is not. It is the third argument that is most interesting right now.

One side of this argument holds that given the terrible financial condition of the Federal government, it should be attempting to spend less. The other side - which currently holds sway in Washington - claims that precisely because the financial situation of the country as a whole is so terrible the Federal government should be spending more. Democratic Senator Evan Bayh, with his call for austerity and belt-tightening on the part of the Federal government, is an excellent example of the spend less side; President Obama, with his vast array of spending proposals, personifies the spend more side.

There is, however, a fourth argument that can be made against normal appropriations and non-pork earmarks: Federal spending should be cut, period. This is not the same as Bayh’s argument. In fact, he explicitly says (emphasis mine):

The omnibus increases discretionary spending by 8% over last fiscal year's levels, dwarfing the rate of inflation across a broad swath of issues including agriculture, financial services, foreign relations, energy and water programs, and legislative branch operations. Such increases might be appropriate for a nation flush with cash or unconcerned with fiscal prudence, but America is neither.

In other words, if we could afford it this huge increase in the Federal budget might be fine; it’s only because we can’t afford it that it’s problematic. Similarly Republican Senator Tom Coburn when criticizing the Stimulus Package spoke of the increase in debt and of the need “to lessen the waste, fraud, and abuse, the inefficiency, and to make choices on what is more important.” What he did not do was suggest that perhaps Federal spending was too large even aside from waste, fraud, abuse, and inefficiency. He did not suggest that perhaps there are some functions the Federal government should not be doing.

As everyone surely knows by now, Rahm Emanuel said that a crisis is “an opportunity to do important things that you would otherwise avoid” and the Democrats have taken his words to heart by arguing that economic disaster is the perfect climate for huge spending both through enlarging existing programs and through creating new programs like universal health care and green energy. Perhaps the Republicans - assuming any of them are still in favor of a small Federal government - should also adopt Emanuel’s approach and use the crisis to argue that far from being the time for more Federal spending this is a perfect opportunity to start figuring out what functions - and therefore costs - we don’t need from Washington. In other words, mount an opposition to the massive increase in normal spending that isn’t based on claiming this is not a good time for such expansion but is instead based on insisting there is never a good time for it.

Next up: The wrong way and the right way to oppose pork-barrel earmarks
March 10, 2009: This is now up.

-----

* The price tag for earmarks seems to vary depending on who is adding it up. Democrats are - or were -
estimating $3.8 billion. The Heritage Foundation says nearly $13 billion. My $7.7 billion number came from Taxpayers for Common Sense and is the number I’m seeing most often. Their link discusses why their number differs from the one the Democrats came up with. A lot of that disparity is because:

the Appropriations Committee chooses not to include earmarks from project-based accounts in their totals, despite the fact that they were not requested by the administration. For example, the Corps of Engineers budget is made up of hundreds of projects that add up to the agency total. These numbers are not included in the committee totals or in their reduction predictions. In addition, the committee ascribes many operations and maintenance projects to the President when they were not actually requested as part of the FY09 budget.

They also “found a lot of ‘looks like earmark, talks like an earmark’ provisions in the bill that we tally as ‘undisclosed’ earmarks” and seem to believe there are more to be found.

*****

Sources and reading:

Coburn Corruption and Waste Elimination Amendments - This focuses on provisions Senator Tom Coburn (R, OK) opposes but the pdf links in the “Related Resources” section lets you see all the earmarks in the Omnibus bill.


Jamie Dupree is a blogger at WSB Radio in Atlanta who is happily slicing and dicing the data on earmarks. Skim through his archives but the posts I found particularly interesting were:

Omnibus Earmarks, Part 1 - This is a partial list of earmarks in the Omnibus bill. It’s much of the same data you can find at Coburn’s site but it’s nicely formatted and easily searchable.

More On Omnibus Earmarks - This is a list of solo earmarks.

Even More Omnibus Data - Lists earmarks by Senator

Senatorial Pork Barrel - Talks about how pork comes from both sides of the aisle.

Talking about earmarks

Yesterday on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Claire McCaskill and Carly Fiorina went a couple of rounds on earmarks. You can read their argument for yourself but basically it came down to McCaskill saying Palin claims to oppose earmarks but asked for gazillions of dollars in them and Fiorina saying Obama asked for even more and at least Palin as governor acknowledged they were corrupting and wanted to ask for fewer of them. McCaskill finished up with:

She took the money for the bridge to nowhere. She took -- she hired lobbyists to get earmarks.

This is a woman who has been lobbying for earmarks, has received earmarks. As a mayor, as a governor.

This is a good example of what I’m talking about. You know, honor is talked about a lot in this campaign. Honor comes with honesty. And you’ve got to be honest about the facts.

Sarah Palin has been an earmark queen in Alaska. That’s the facts.

Setting aside the specific issue of earmarks for a moment, I’d advise Obama supporters to step very cautiously around the issues of honor and honesty. Challenging someone’s honor or honesty is still a fighting offense to a lot of people and the Obama campaign better have more to back up those charges than cries of outrage over the type of spin, hyperbole, and political license that all campaigns - including most definitely the Obama campaign - practice all the time.

More on topic, I wonder if an “earmark queen” is anything like a “welfare queen”?

Back to the fray. Fiorina’s last word on earmarks was (emphasis mine):

Sarah Palin has made significant reforms and significant progress in the amount of earmark money that Alaska takes. She stood up as governor and said, “we must reform this corrupting process.”

It is true that as mayor, she worked within the system that she was a part of, but it is also true that she stepped forward against her own party and said enough is enough.

I think Fiorina is on the right track with regard to how Palin’s people should be talking about earmarks. The way to address the discrepancy between wanting to reform the earmark process and taking earmarks is to be up front about the whole thing. Admit that of course Palin asked for earmarks. Everybody asks for earmarks. Look at all the earmarks Obama asked for. If Palin hadn’t asked for earmarks for Wasilla and for Alaska she would have been putting her city and her state at a disadvantage with regard to other government that were asking for and getting Federal money. That’s why she understands how important it is to reform the whole system: as long as earmarks exist local officials have to make use of them to stay competitive and to stay in office. A corrupt system inevitably corrupts everything and everyone it touches and that’s why she wants to change the system itself.