First aid money for real America

Congress is a beleaguered government institution at a benighted political moment. We all endured images of the literal attack on the symbol of our democracy at the Capitol last month. In the aftermath, we have to see an unscalable fence with razor wire as a lingering reminder of the weakness and vulnerability of Congress. For those of us that want to see that barrier removed in every sense of the word, it is time for the legislative branch to reaffirm its own rightful place in the constitutional order.

Congress reclaimed a vital spending power last week. House Democrats repealed the past moratorium on earmarks, which means that individual lawmakers will once more be allowed to direct spending to repair bridges, widen roads, and invest in economic projects. Lawmakers wisely set new safeguards around this “community project funding” process to weed out unworthy spending proposals and add oversight measures.

Unfortunately, this positive development is already being maligned with critics. Such outcry against these special appropriations is as old as the country, and stories of bad actors and cliches about “pork barrel politics” with the use of earmarks have provided critics with plenty of ammunition. But the truth is that earmarks are a key tool of governance.

Congress enacted a moratorium on earmarks in 2011, when the country was in the depths of economic hardship, recovering from the mortgage crisis and trying to shed an enormous budget deficit. Earmarks were an easy target with scandals, like “earmarks for bribes” of former California Representative Randy Cunningham, in the news. The “bridge to nowhere” of former Alaska Senator Ted Stevens drove home the idea that earmarks were wasteful and untied to the needs of everyday people.

Congress should balance the potential abuses of earmarks with a concern for bringing home the bacon. A recent study by myself and Kevin Kosar at the American Enterprise Institute demonstrates that earmarks were a tool for Congress to finance local projects, coalesce majorities, and carry out the spending responsibilities. The elimination of earmarks has not ended special pleas for federal funding and saved money, but shifted decisions toward partisans and bureaucrats in the executive branch.

The moratorium has meant that Americans have fewer options for federal support, while Congress has fewer options for legislating. Earmarks were not contributors to the deficit, and accounted for less than 3 percent of discretionary spending in the three years before their suspension in 2011. It is shared knowledge in Washington that the deficit has been driven by entitlements, like Medicare and Medicaid, and that funding local projects with earmarks was a drop in the bucket of the government.

According to interviews with former House members from both sides of the aisle who were in Congress with and without earmarks, half reported that direct spending had been an essential measure for bringing federal resources to rural districts. A Republican member noted that larger cities would always get federal money based on formulas, but suburbs and rural communities lost that ability after the moratorium. A Democratic member said rural areas will not have infrastructure needs met without earmarks, and called the practice “first aid money for real America.”

In this survey of former House members, nine out of ten told us earmarks should be reinstituted with reforms. We recommend that reforms focus on transparency, fairness in distribution, and have strong conflict of interest rules. Indeed, Congress is an institution endowed with the constitutional duty to represent all of our diverse and extended country.

It is easy to lose sight of this with our heated politics. Members know they are sent to Washington to represent their states and districts, and that the executive branch cannot hope to have the same connection as they do to all citizens. Earmarks give lawmakers a common purpose as an institution. If this constitutional principle becomes another empty battle around the swamp, then everyday people will lose out on a primary means to support our general welfare and get nothing of substance in return.

Zachary Courser is director of the Claremont McKenna College Policy Lab.