Editorial: Earmarks A Two-Edged Sword, But We Need Them

Today in Washington a much-publicized skirmish is going on related to earmarks and whether or not that legislative process should be eliminated entirely or whether a moratorium should be ordered. The economy being what it is, those who want to see earmarks banned entirely are finding much support in a public that is hurting financially. Realistically, however, earmarks are two-edged swords and we need them.

As the process relates to water transportation, shutting down earmarks would be devastating. Sen. Christopher “Kit” Bond (R-Mo.) put it succinctly during his interview with WJ contributor Tom Gladders (WJ, November 22). He responded to a question related to proposed Upper Mississippi and Illinois river modernization: “Unfortunately, if the anti-earmark craze actually stops congressionally directed spending, it is unlikely any money will be allocated for river modernization.”

That response gains significance when we learn from Sen. Bond’s explanation that “With the national unemployment rate hovering around 10 percent our first priority should be creating jobs, and improving our water transportation infrastructure is a jobs project.” Modernizing the Depression-era locks and dams would take 48 million man-hours—creating much-needed jobs, he said. “In addition, once modernized, the increased shipping capacity will allow us to expand global trade—meaning more economic development for our farmers and producers here at home.”

Realistically, stakeholders far beyond water transportation could make the same argument and be correct. However, as far as public understanding, the earmark issue is a murky one. There are critical reasons why we think the legislative earmarking process should not be discontinued.

Under Article 1, Section 9, of the United States Constitution, Congress is required to pass legislation directing all appropriations of money drawn from the U.S. Treasury. This gives Congress the power to earmark funds for specifically named projects. Earmarking has become a regular part of the process of allocating funds within the federal government.

The danger of disallowing earmarks is that the spending process is then left up to the executive branch. Now that may be a good thing if your president is dedicated to the economic well-being of the country and not controlled by interest in his own re-election. The question is, “Do we want representatives of the various states having a hand in fulfilling the responsibilities mandated by the Constitution, or do we default and let the president and his cabinet make all the decisions?”

Control over the purse strings is far more important an issue than efforts to ban earmarks to cut less than 1 percent of expenditures from the budget. Banning earmarks is an emotion-fed campaign brought on by problems of the moment—economic bad times. But preserving the congressional power to direct where Treasury funds will be spent is crucial to the republic.

To be sure, there are problems with earmarks. They are frequently abused, such as in the case of Alaska’s “Bridge to Nowhere”—the Gravina Island Bridge. A redeeming feature, even with what we have come to call “pork,” is that earmarks may create jobs and help the economy. “Earmarks may appear in legislative text or report language (accompanying reported bills and joint explanatory statement accompanying a conference report),” according to a widely used definition developed by the Congressional Research Service.

Congressional members can use earmarks to reward those who vote for them, but the president and executive branch do the same thing. So, whom do we want holding the purse strings? We must also keep in mind that with many projects, the birth of an idea, the development of a plan have come about after weeks, perhaps years, of meetings with public entities that believe the project to be important to the area. Do we simply “blow off” the significance of these meetings with the grassroots? We think not.

Every year, stakeholders from throughout the national spectrum do their best to educate members of Congress, et al, as to the value of their little corner of the world. Such education is a major undertaking of water transportation organizations. If Congress loses the power to earmark, millions of dollars spent and millions of hours expended toward education of congressional members will have been lost. Put even in terms of olden days, the king and his henchmen will reign supreme and the rest of the nation will be restricted to serfdom until a political revolution takes place to correct matters. An effort to correct the course of government is now underway.

As it now stands, the president, who was a lead partner in authorizing the river modernization funds, has failed to make the project a priority in his budget, Sen. Bond said.

Too often that is the case with presidents. Earmarks may represent our salvation at this point. We should not destroy the congressionally mandated responsibility for Congress to control the purse strings.

The Waterways Journal encourages letters to the editor.
Have something on your mind?
Send letters to: jshoulberg@waterwaysjournal.net.
(Please indicate whether or not your letter is intended for publication.)