by hilzoy
From the Washington Post:
“Democratic leaders declared a temporary moratorium on special-interest provisions known as earmarks as they attempt to cope with a budget crisis left by the outgoing Republican-led 109th Congress.”
I completely agree with those who say that earmarks are small potatoes in the — gosh, where to go with this metaphor? — in the vast tureen of fetid green bubbling slime that was the Republicans’ fiscal policy. But they are unusually repellent, and it’s nice to see the Democrats forswear them.
You are overreading the issue.
First, earmarks were never a Republican fiscal policy issue (except by Gingrich when he was railing against Democrats using them). They have always been a Congressional abuse–going back to the 1960s at the very least and covering 30+ years of Democratic Party control of the House.
Second, it is a moratorium on earmarks while Republicans are in control. Don’t expect that to last.
Third, and a hint about why you shouldn’t expect it to last, look at the people making the statement: David Obey and Robert Byrd. Of all Congressmen in the history of the institution, Byrd is one of the very biggest earmarkers. He practically developed it into an art form which should be considered an especially amazing feat considering that he isn’t even in the house that originates spending bills and he continued with that reputation even through the Republican years.
clearly Sebastian would prefer the Dems didn’t do anything about it at all.
Most of the earmarks are going to be Republican pork anyway. Democrats were so shut out of the system that they won’t take anywhere near half of the brunt of the pain.
It shafts Republicans, it looks good, and is (in part) the right thing to do.
If they can make a serious run at “reforming” the earmark process (making it very transparent who’s earmarking what, at least), they complete the play.
“clearly Sebastian would prefer the Dems didn’t do anything about it at all.”
No. I would clearly prefer that earmarks go away. I’m pointing out that only the pro-Republican earmarks will be going away, to be replaced by Democratic Party earmarks. I’d be thrilled to be proven wrong, but with Byrd heading the effort I’m absolutely certain I won’t be.
I’m with Sebastian in supposing that the “earmark reform” won’t last very long, though I’m up for being surprised.
Unfortunately, while earmarks annoy many of us, they’re very low on the list of reasons that people actually switch their votes, so real forbearance seems unlikely.
While I don’t have the numbers to hand, I understand that the use of earmarks (and their value) increased enormously over the past decade or so of Republican control of Congress.
I too don’t expect this to last. However, I was happy that Byrd had signed on to it, precisely because he was a flagrant offender.
As I understand it, the number of earmarks under Republicans went way, way up. I’d be happy if it went down by, say, an order of magnitude.
Here‘s a whole lot of data; haven’t even begun to aggregate it yet.
“However, I was happy that Byrd had signed on to it, precisely because he was a flagrant offender.”
He didn’t sign on, he is allegedly one of the architects of it.
When a mafia don says “there will be no unnecessary killings while I’m in charge” you are deceiving yourself if you interpret that as him foreswearing the use of violence.
I’m thrilled that the Republican earmarks are going away. But the best we can really hope for is that Democrats don’t quite have their acts together enough to replace it with equal earmarks of their own in their first year in power. Taking a Byrd and Obey initiated ‘change’ on pork as anything other than cosmetic is just begging for disappointment.
Seb: I wasn’t thinking of it as “Byrd changes stripes completely”. To use your analogy: if, during a time of mob violence, someone declared that there would be a truce, it would be comforting to know that one of the worst mafia bosses had signed on — not because you’d be thinking anything in particular about his motives, but because it would reassure you that the truce might actually hold for as while, for whatever reason.
That said, I would hope that the Democrats would be less awful than the Republicans, in this regard. Certainly their record to date is less awful.
That said, I would hope that the Democrats would be less awful than the Republicans, in this regard. Certainly their record to date is less awful.
Ah, the wonderful choice between awful and less awful, I do love our politicians these days.
I remembered reading a Harper’s article about earmarks last year and found that it’s now online:
“Seb: I wasn’t thinking of it as “Byrd changes stripes completely”. To use your analogy: if, during a time of mob violence, someone declared that there would be a truce”
I would agree with you, in that case, but I don’t think that is what is happening here. Byrd didn’t announce a truce. He announced that the Republican earmarks wouldn’t be going through (good) and said that the proper process (undefined but probably not good in a fiscal responsibility sense) would be used in the future. He is saying, these earmarks are bad and making a show of not going through with them. That is a great way of doing something self-serving while getting good PR at the same time. But that isn’t a truce. That is winning and getting your way. (I’m not complaining about the winning part. I’m noting that the idea that Democrats winning means that fiscal responsibility has arrived is completely different from not allowing the Republican-district earmarks).
There used to be a federal program called “Aid in Grants to Cities” or “Aid in Grants to States” or something like that. It was basically a program for taking federal monies and sending them back to individual states or cities. (Money, frex, from places like NY went to places like Mississippi.) Reagan, of course, ended that program.
Does anyone have any figures on how much money went to earmarks pre-Reagan (when the Grant to Cities program was still around) versus how much is going to earmarks now?
Temporary. That’s the word that jumps out at me.
CaseyL, are you thinking of the Community Development Block Grants? They’re what Nixon replaced the federal poverty programs with; the mantra was more local control. I suppose I don’t need to add that the CDBGs almost immediately lost most of their poverty-fighting character.
The Democrats pick up another House seat. That gives them 233 — more than the Republicans have had since 1949. And Henry Bonilla — known to DC residents as the guy who wanted to make us rename 16th Street after Ronald Reagan — is gone.
Praise for Pelosi, plus some more recent Congressional ethics cleanup activities, from Don Surber. Believe it or not.