Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO) are being allowed an amendment to the Food Safety bill that would make it a requirement that any bill with an earmark get 60 votes. Maybe because this is a change in the rules, the amendment will need the support of two-thirds of the Senate (67 votes) in order to pass. There are several Republicans who don’t support this change in the rules, including Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, Thad Cochran of Mississippi. But there are supporters in the Democratic Caucus, including Russ Feingold, Evan Bayh, and Mark Udall of Colorado. It’s really a pretty mild proposal.
When was the last time a major spending bill passed without having to face a cloture vote? It already takes 60 votes to pass all but the least controversial bills in the Senate, so this reform wouldn’t appear to change much. It would do little more than remove the formality of an objecting senator having to refuse his or her consent to proceed to a vote on a bill. Instead, they’d have to invoke a ‘point of order’ objection.
Here is how they are defining ‘earmarks.’
“A provision or report language included primarily at the request of a Senator or Member of the House of Representatives providing, authorizing, or recommending a specific amount of discretionary budget authority, credit authority, or other spending authority for a contract, loan, loan guarantee, grant, loan authority, or other expenditure with or to an entity, or targeted to a specific State, locality or Congressional district, other than through a statutory or administrative formula-driven or competitive award process.”
It has been widely noted that spending earmarks make up a tiny percentage of the overall budget and that Congress probably shouldn’t give up their right to direct federal spending to specific projects. However, there are tax earmarks, too, and they make up a larger part of the budget.
Lawmakers directed $15.9 billion in spending earmarks to their home states in 2010, but the co-chairmen of President Obama’s fiscal commission estimate there are $1.1 trillion worth of annual earmarks in tax legislation.
It’s unclear to me how this amendment would interact with the Budget Act of 1974. In particular, I don’t know how it would affect the use of the budget reconciliation process, which allows the Senate to pass spending bills that are not subject to the filibuster.
I can’t say that I would support this amendment without knowing its potential impact on the budget, but superficially it doesn’t seem to be a big deal. If it just got John McCain to STFU about earmarks, it might be worth it.
If it just got John McCain to STFU about earmarks, it might be worth it.
I’d rather Cranky McSame be exposed for the dangerous clown he is. Railing against earmarks is just something different that he uses to get to appear on the Sunday Bobblehead shows.
Reforming the earmark process would increase the deficit, imo. You’re taking the allocating process from Senators/Representatives and then giving the authority to bureaucratic institutions which then need to gauge who/what/when/where/why needs money. They might find some better things to spend the money on, but the process it will take will spend more money than just allowing Senators/Representatives.
It’s kind of like drug testing welfare recipients. Not only is this a stupid idea, but let’s just say your goal is to save money. The cost it takes to drug test welfare recipients far outweighs the cost of just giving it to people.
Not exactly. Congress has already given that authority to bureaucratic institutions. Earmarks seek to end-run the formulas or processes for allocation that Congress has previously passed.
The principal argument is that individual members of Congress should not be able to end-run decisions made by Congress as an entire body and signed by the President.
And while saving money is often cited as the reason for eliminating earmarks, what the public understands is that earmarks are a form of patronage that empowers the districts of powerful members of Congress and disadvantages other Congressional districts. For example, there is no rational reason that Charleston, SC got so much military funding during the 1960s and 1970s except that Mendel Rivers was chair of the House Armed Services Committee and earmarked the appropriations.
Now where it is going to get dicey is when appropriations specify certain federal facilities, such as specific military installations or national laboratories or post offices. And also the fact that members of Congress can individually put pressure on department heads for the earmarking of specific projects or awards nominally made on the basis of the defined legislative process. The bureaucracy is easily intimidated by individual members of Congress, not the other way around.
The other downside is it reduces some face-saving legislative maneuvers that promote compromise. Rep. Blue Dog might support health care reform in exchange for an earmarked investment in his district that can be used to placate constituents.
I have no problems with earmarks. My thing is, if you vote NO for them, then you ought not be allowed to send the letter to the Govt. Dept. later asking for this project and that project to be funded.
the money should only go for those willing to put a VOTE ON THE RECORD FOR THEM.
Note that the SPENDING earmarks are fairly small, but hte TAX earmarks (tax cuts/credits targeted to benefit a few lucky recipients) is much larger.
Get rid of the TAX earmarks too.