In Praise of Pork – But There Could Be a Better Way (WITH POLL)

Whatever you can say about John McCain, he is trying his damndest to thrust the issue of Congressional earmarks (or pork-barrel spending to the less wonkish) to the center of the presidential debate despite the fact that most people probably don’t even recognize the term. And he does genuinely seem to care about the issue even if he has actually done little to curb the use of earmarks and picked as his running mate a serial pork-barreler in Sarah Palin.

McCain also makes more of the issue than there is.  During the debate, he essentially argued that earmarked spending was in some way responsible for the economic morass we find ourselves in.  That’s a big stretch given that such funding is small beans within a trillion-plus federal budget.  

But for McCain, earmarks represent a symptom of a broken Washington. Many liberal commentators over the years would agree as moneyed interests and campaign donations can influence such spending as well. So is McCain right?  Are earmarks evil?  

From my perspective, there are many problems with the way earmarks are legislated but ultimately, they represent an admittedly messy means of democratizing the budget process, which is not such a bad thing.  

But first, what are some the problems with earmarking as practiced?  Congressional earmarking is dominated by long-serving members from small states (who obtain powerful positions on the relevant committees) so it skews funding disproportionately to such places and sets up power imbalances within Congress).  There are generally no criteria associated with earmarks so usually no independent means of justifying certain projects versus others.  And too often, earmarks are directed to aid private entities who’ve contributed campaign dollars.  Administratively, earmarks eat into Departmental appropriations and reduce the scope and flexibility of managers to devote funds to where they are most needed.  

People also mention that because earmarking is often done behind closed doors no one can identify who is responsible for hiving off millions to a benefactor and hold them to account.  Yet, in my experience politicians often do everything they can to let their constituents know about the money they’ve brought back to the district so transparency does not seem a general problem.

Against these arguments though, what is the defense of earmarks?  To think about this I’d refer to the budget process in other countries as a contrast.  Take Britain for example.  An old Beacon Hill friend of mine lives over in London and works for the British Treasury as a policy director.  He has described to me a completely executive-led budget process.  

In the British system, spending decisions are the responsibility of one man – the Chancellor of the Exchequer.  He negotiates three-year spending contracts with each department of government and then tells Parliament what expenditure will be over the period.  Departments get their funding and work within the agreement for the three years.  Parliament doesn’t amend the spending plan at all (unless they want to take down the government which the party in control doesn’t want to do).  Individual members of Parliament have no say about how funding affects their districts, other than to occassionally complain.  Civil servants, who have huge power in the British system to administer programs as they see fit, dispense funding often based on bureaucratic formulae or criteria.  

The system seems to work great in planning out funding for the long-term, forcing out efficiencies and distributing funds in proportion to where they are most needed.  I think there is much we could learn from the way they drive performance through spending policy and focus on the long-term needs of the nation.  But, my buddy in London, despite the fact that working in the Treasury enables him huge say over spending policy, finds the system amazingly undemocratic.  Think how everyone here flipped over the notion of giving Hank Paulson a $700bn check with no Congressional oversight.  That is essentially what Britain is like, where parliamentary scrutiny exists but is tremendously weak.

Of course, Congress (by divine intervention) could decide to get rid of earmarks and that wouldn’t mean it becomes like Britain – where the executive and bureaucracy dictate spending plans.  Congress could still pass now-clean appropriations bills and haggle over where spending priorities should be without earmarking funds.  But I still think getting rid of earmarks without considering some other means of democratizing the budget process would be a mistake.  Why?  

As often as not, earmarks come from grassroots action and not just fat cats.  When money is identified for a community theatre or local park there is often widespread support for that project within the community.  Campaigning for assistance is often vigorous and only those items with considerable backing receive funding.  Now of course, judging spending priorities by how many letters received or calls made on the issue may not be efficient but its not the worst thing to allow a community or local institution to lobby for what it needs or at least have that option.  Close it off and while so-called special interests may lose a venue to pursue their agenda so would everyone else.

But, while earmarks themselves may not be the evil McCain would make them there is room for improving the process so that it accentuates the democratic elements of earmarking while diminishing the process’ corrosive features.  So how to do this?

One way would be to give each member of Congress and the Senate a pot of funding to allocate to their districts.  The size of the pots could be weighted by population or through other criteria.  Each rep or Senator essentially already has such a pot but no one knows what is in it and they all have to work the system to get their money – often with seniority determining the level of success.  If you just gave them some funding (preferably without regard to years of service) they could then engage with their constituents on what it should go for – which would bring people into the process and take the fat cats out of it.  It would be out in the open and politicians would be directly accountable for how the funding was used.  They also wouldn’t have to take a slice of an existing Departmental budget – thus separating “district projects” from the broader spending plan.

Such a notion is actually gaining credence in places like Britain where funding has long been dictated by a few powerful officials.  The idea of participatory budgeting is taking off at the local level abroad.  My buddy tells me that local council members in parts of Britain have been given neighborhood budgets they can use to fund projects favored by their local publics.  Why not try such an idea back here?  How about giving it a go on Beacon Hill or in Washington for that matter?

They often say that pork-barrel spending is the grease the makes the wheels of Washington turn.  I tend to accept it as necessary to legislating budgets.  I think that elected officials working with the people they represent should be able to steer funds to things they care about.  So let them earmark – just bring it out into the open and make it a part of efforts to strengthen our democracy.  

I’d be interested in thoughts on this, ideas for improvement, etc…  Also take a look at the poll.

Please share widely!

0

0