With Its New Policy on Earmarks, Congress Goes Back to the Future

By Charles Dervarics

After 10 years of hibernation in politically charged Washington, the much-derided earmark is making a comeback on Capitol Hill. Democratic leaders are promising a better, cleaner and more transparent version of this old chestnut through which lawmakers steer federal funding to favored (or important?) projects in their states without merit-based reviews.

For some in D.C., it’s time to cue the familiar refrain about the evils of political “pork barrel spending.” In fact, earmark comes from an agricultural term in which farmers would mark the ear of pigs or cattle to note an animal’s ownership, age or gender. (As my father was a butcher, I always enjoy any side reference to the old family business).

But earmarks have a long and controversial history in Congress. While some addressed key priorities in traditionally underserved communities, high-profile boondoggles such as Alaska’s ‘bridge to nowhere’ became an easy target for critics and the press. Back in 2010, earmarks for special projects totaled $16.5 billion, according to Citizens Against Government Waste. Though significant, however, that figure was just a drop in the bucket for all government spending, representing only half of one percent of the federal budget.

Until the ban a decade ago, lawmakers typically added projects via specific language in appropriations bills or reports that accompanied such legislation. But the insular process meant some details didn’t emerge publicly until after a congressional vote.

What’s notable this year is that Democrats are pledging a more open and need-based process. Given President Biden’s emphasis on infrastructure, highway and transit projects are likely to be a significant focus of new earmarks. The House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure recently issued detailed criteria for projects, noting that all requests should appear on state/local priority lists and have letters of support from local leaders. Among other requirements, lawmakers also must certify that neither they nor any family members have a financial stake in the project.

"We have surrounded our new process with the transparency to assure projects meet federal and local standards,” said Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-D.C., a senior Democrat on the panel. Other proponents argue it will give lawmakers, rather than government bureaucrats, more input in steering funds toward the local level.

In the House Appropriations Committee, which sets spending for hundreds of government programs, leaders say that a lawmaker can request up to 10 earmarks – called community project funding – but must make all requests fully public.

Republicans appear divided, however. In a secret tally, the House GOP recently voted to participate in the earmark process. But the Senate Republican Conference upheld its previous ban on the practice, though individual members are not bound by that policy.

Proponents of the new approach say both Democrats and Republicans can share equally in the new earmarks, with some even suggesting that it may help diffuse tensions between the parties. Most also welcome increased transparency. At the very least, in butcher parlance, it should provide the public with more information about political sausage-making on Capitol Hill.

1 Comment

Add yours

Rich Corbett says:

May 7, 2021 at 5:36 pm

Loved the added lesson: “In fact, earmark comes from an agricultural term in which farmers would mark the ear of pigs or cattle to note an animal’s ownership, age or gender. (As my father was a butcher, I always enjoy any side reference to the old family business).”

I enjoyed and saw all three columns as logical and fair (which is unusual for me), but as a citizen who prefers a smaller Federal government and theorizes that taxing and spending is better when it is managed the closer it is to the people (state/city/local).

The practice of earmarking has never been popular with most voters and applaud any attempt to make them transparent, even if I’m skeptical that politicians want to give up bringing home pork? I’m also sympathetic to smaller states with lower population, lower incomes and far more square miles to manage; they do need additional resources to maintain, develop and expand their infrastructure, hence earmarking provides a way for them to trade votes for funding. On the other hand, it is not all that difficult for all but the naive to see why politicians want to more money and include earmarks for their constituents in every bill.

Personally I see the only way to correct the abuse and waste associated with earmarks is to reduce the size of the Federal government and amount of money they control. Just as with our own budgets, when we have less, it will be spent on the most essential needs before our wants … and in the case of our Federal government, a smaller take from citizens might be used more efficiently (I’ve yet to see government spend efficiently). As the Federal government has grown, it has expanded and often supplanted personal responsibility and very efficient volunteer efforts (I grew up in a small town and miss the generation of my mom and how they ran local charities).

Political ideologues have forever debated the “how big” the role of the Federal government should be, but I personally prefer we move closer to James Madison and how he defined the concept of federalism—“The powers delegated … to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite” … and a return to THAT would curtail wasteful earmarking.