Today’s Washington Post featured a front page article highlighting the funding earmarks that local US Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD) championed. Of course Mr. Hoyer defends his practice of encouraging his colleagues to include funding for programs he deems important. Naturally, many of these programs are in his home district. Anybody shocked?! This is a practice that has been going on for decades, by both political parties and by most members of Congress. We, the voters, want our towns, communities and favorite programs to benefit from federal largess and we reward legislators who “bring home the bacon.” We thank them for their efforts by re-electing them to gain seniority to bring home even more.
And, why is this all so bad? When federal funding seems to be a pay-off for campaign support and when particular projects seem to have little merit, like the bridge to nowhere in Alaska, then funding watchdogs and citizens get concerned. And, rightly so. However, there is a flip side to this that gets little ink. Many important health, education and social service programs rely on assistance from members of Congress to ensure that needed services get funded. Most charities and nonprofits can’t afford high priced lobbying help and are forbidden to give campaign contributions. So, educating Congress and identifying “champions” who support your cause are important.
Both the House and Senate are ruled by committees, each focused on certain issues or activities. Members vie to serve on committees that either deal with issues vital to their districts or wield lots of power (appropriations). To understand the importance of earmarks is to understand the nature of Congress at work. Generally, members of committees have the “most say” in how programs under their jurisdiction get shaped, but it up to the House and Senate appropriations committees to set the actual funding amounts. So, there are often lots of “negotiations” back and forth to fund worthwhile programs and to help members’ local communities.
And, let’s not forget the Administration’s role in all of this. Each president sets his funding priorities. Certain issues and activities get top billing in the annual budget that gets sent to Congress. It is the job of the members in Congress belonging to the president’s party to work to get funding. What happens to good, successful programs that might not happen to be “in” during any particular administration? Usually someone in Congress comes to the rescue with an “earmark.” For many community programs serving local needs consistent funding is crucial regardless of who is in office. Where would we be without Headstart, disease prevention and energy conservation programs? Members of Congress must ensure that the needs of our country in all vital areas are met. Those looking out for particular programs, make it their business to “earmark” funding.
Funding the federal government via earmarks is not ideal. The squeaky wheel still gets heard and funded. However, with all the critical and timely issues that Congress needs to grapple with, it is impossible to expect that each and every federal program gets vetted and voted on by all 535 US legislators. Prohibiting earmarks will not solve this problem. But, it may prevent worthwhile efforts, emerging science and new opportunities from getting recognized and funded.
