Free Markets, Free People


Earmark ban–you have to start somewhere

It is easy to be cynical about politics today, especially for long-time observers.  Years of watching fingers carefully placed in the political wind to determine its direction has given those watching the process a decided and well earned reason for cynicism. 

But that has to be leavened somewhat with the understanding of how this political process works, why the incentives it offers is one of the main reasons it is broken, and then applaud actions which  – no matter how seemingly small or insignificant they are – work toward changing those incentives in a meaningful way.

It has been said by many that “earmarks” are both trivial and insignificant when it comes to the budget deficit.  They’re barely 1% of the budget.  We’re told they’re no big thing in world of trillion dollar deficits.

Yes they are significant.  For many reasons.  Most obvious among them is they’re part of that incentive system that encourages profligacy and waste.  As one wag pointed out, they’re the Congressional “gateway drug” for profligacy and waste on a much grander scale.

Secondly while it is easy to waive away “1%” of the budget as “insignificant”, you have to ask, “is it really?”  Certainly in terms relative to a 2.8 trillion dollar budget, a few billion dollars doesn’t seem like much.  But it is

We know – all of us, even the left – that we must cut spending.  Period.  There’s no argument about that.  The argument is where we cut.  And how much.  Cutting 1% of spending wrapped up in earmarks should be a “no-brainer”.  It is a good first step.  If you’re going to say to the country, “we’ve all got to cut back”, what better way – speaking of leadership – is there to make the point than to cut out spending that is advantageous to you politically.

That’s certainly the case with earmarks and has been for decades.  It is the Congressional method of using tax dollars to help ensure a high return of incumbents on election day.  So the symbolism involved in cutting them out is important.  Especially, as I noted, when the country is going to be asked to take cuts in things which they find advantageous to themselves.

That all brings me to Sen. Mitch McConnell essentially reversing himself and signing on to the earmark ban.  I’m cautiously optimistic that the GOP leadership is actually beginning to get the message that I think was transmitted loud and clear on November 2nd.   Said McConnell:

“What I’ve concluded is that on the issue of congressional earmarks, as the leader of my party in the Senate, I have to lead first by example,” McConnell said on the Senate floor. “Nearly every day that the Senate’s been in session for the past two years, I have come down to this spot and said that Democrats are ignoring the wishes of the American people. When it comes to earmarks, I won’t be guilty of the same thing.” 

Good. What I’m not going to do is look this particular gift horse in the mouth and try to determine whether it is a cynical political ploy or genuine. I’m simply going to take it at face value and put a plus next to earmark reform. I’ll take McConnell at his word and demand that he now be consistent in applying the same received message to areas of spending that will indeed make a huge difference.  Or said another way, I appreciate the sentiment and the symbolism of the earmark ban, but that doesn’t satisfy me or anyone else.  It just indicates some seriousness and willingness to do what is necessary to rein in the government’s spending.  While appreciated, it in no way means anything much more than that.

McConnell acknowledges the “wishes of the American people”.  Those wishes were clearly expressed as a much smaller, much less costly and intrusive federal government.  Banning earmarks is as good a place to start as any.  But the serious work of cutting government down to size must continue immediately after the ban is in effect.  The electoral gods will have no mercy on the GOP in 2012 if the American people don’t see a concerted effort by the party toward that goal.

~McQ

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • email
  • Print
  • Google Bookmarks

6 Responses to Earmark ban–you have to start somewhere

  • “What I’ve concluded is that on the issue of congressional earmarks, as the leader of my party in the Senate, I have to lead first by example,” McConnell said on the Senate floor. “Nearly every day that the Senate’s been in session for the past two years, I have come down to this spot and said that Democrats are ignoring the wishes of the American people. When it comes to earmarks, I won’t be guilty of the same thing.” 

    Hallelujah!  Mitch – for the moment, anyway – seems to get it.  Let’s hope this isn’t a lot of hypocritical posturing AND that the rest of the GOP members take the same position.  It may take throwing more of them out in ’12 to pound in the idea that we don’t want them wasting any more of our money for ANY reason.  For my part, I don’t give two big sh*ts how much money Senator Richard Burr “brings back to North Carolina”; unless the money is spent for a good and constitutional reason as part of a regular appropriation, he can take the check and stick it where the sun don’t shine.

  • If they can’t tackle the low hanging fruit now, they’ll never be able to do anything bigger down the road.  So do this.  And see if you can’t defund NPR and the NEA while you’re at it - in this fiscal climate I think you can get away with it.

    Check off all the easy wins first (that they’re probably political winners or at least neutral is a benefit), then lets get to work

  • Good for you and good for McConnell.  Good, positive attitudes.

  • A House Ethics subcommittee announced Tuesday that it has found New York Democratic Rep. Charlie Rangel guilty of 11 ethics violations. The panel’s chairwoman, California Democratic Rep. Zoe Lofgren said the committee rolled two charges together, meaning that Rangel was ultimately charged with 12, not 13 charges as originally stated. She added the committee was split on one of the remaining 12 counts– a charge of harming the credibility of Congress.

    I’d have to say that Rangel is “not guilty” of harming the credibility of Congress because Congress has no credibility to harm.
    The “earmark ban” is the beginning of the walk back.

  • IF the elephant in the room is Medicare and Social Security payments, then the politicians are going to need the support of retirees and those within 5 years of retirement. Who just happen to be the people who have the highest rate of voting participation. Unlike all the pundits and “experts”  in Washington and New York, the politicians can’t wave their hands and just “fix” Medicare and Social Security through tax hikes, benefit adjustments and spending caps. Do that without laying the groundwork and the tea party revolt would pale in comparison.