When Is an Earmark Not an Earmark?
By Mary Theroux • Wednesday February 25, 2009 3:19 PM PDT • 6 Comments
From President Obama’s speech to Congress Tuesday evening:
I’m proud that we passed the recovery plan free of earmarks, and I want to pass a budget next year that ensures that each dollar we spend reflects only our most important national priorities.
No earmarks among the $787 billion authorized in the bill’s 1,073 pages?
As MSNBC reported, using Congress’s own 2007 definition of earmark as “language that aims spending at specific programs, states or localities, often at a member’s request”:
Specific location? The Senate stimulus contains $50 million for habitat restoration and other water needs in the San Francisco Bay Area. There is another $62 million for military projects in Guam.
Specific industry? The House bill includes an amendment authored by Democratic Rep. Bruce Braley setting aside $500 million for biofuel makers, which he says, would bring jobs home to Iowa.
Specific program? There’s $198 million to compensate Filipino World War II veterans for their service. Most don’t live in the United States.
And even some Members of Congress admitted the “earmark-free” stimulus bill contained de facto earmarks:
“While this bill does not include traditional earmarks, we should all understand that there are earmarks in this bill,” said Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo. “There is $850 million ... to bail out Amtrak, a $75 million earmark for the Smithsonian, a $1 billion earmark for the 2010 census.”
Even if you buy the president’s definition of “earmarks”—as some bought President Clinton’s definition of “is”—Congress made up for its earmark “restraint” with its approval today of a new $410 billion dollar package—it contains 8,570 earmarks at a cost of $7.7 billion.
Tags: Bailouts, Budget and Tax Policy, Economics, Politics, Taxation, The State 
Are we really qualifying “Filipino World War II veterans for their service” as an earmark? And what does the statement “Most don’t live in the United States.” have anything to do with it. If they’re veterans they’re veterans. If they fought and risked their lives for the U.S. they should be accorded the same respect as any other veteran who fought and gave their life for America.
Keith | Feb 25, 2009 | Reply
Thanks for your comment, Keith.
Please note that this is a direct quote from CSNBC: it’s an earmark as defined by Congress as “directed to a specific program.”
And I infer the “Most don’t live in the United States” comment to refer to the fact that this was supposed to be a bill to stimulate the U.S. economy.
Mary Theroux | Feb 25, 2009 | Reply
Much of the focus on earmarks during the last presidential campaign was really just a prop for John McCain to pretend that he was a fiscal conservative, when he had been responsible for supporting vast out-of-control spending during the Bush administration. He would become all indignant about a “bridge to nowhere” costing millions, while taking listeners’ attention from his support for an Iraq War which cost hundreds of billions of dollars.
But that is what national politics has become, misdirection of the citizens’ focus away from the truly vital concerns (and the state’s major crimes) and toward the more trivial ones. When the politicians can use the focus on trivialities to pit one set of citizens against another, that makes it even better.
D. Saul Weiner | Feb 26, 2009 | Reply
Earmarks! I’m always amazed this term exists as action taken by both parties. I draw comparisons to a basic business plan. A business plan includes the why, what and how the business will succeed. Even in our downturn economy I was able to raise 3.6 million over the last few months from private funding sources. The plan is specific and it must convince your funding source it has a reasonable chance of success. The point? Would my business idea have the same level of success if I added spending proposals which don’t even remotely effect the spirit of the basic plan? For example what if my new Internet company had included in the budget a front loader, tractor and a crane for say another 3 million. Do you think my funding sources would have laughed at me or granted the funds? Even if the funds were granted what would be the purpose of ownership for a front loader, tractor and crane?
If I were in Congress I would consider a study of the actual taxes raised by my constituents and would seek to return as much of those funds as possible. They would support the local region for improvements.
I would further suggest we must live within a budget and end the income tax. Ending the income tax puts more cash in peoples pockets which promotes savings and higher levels of consumption. Our economic situation would prosper with few taxes not more.
Darel | Mar 3, 2009 | Reply
Darel, seriously, think about what you are saying... you’d never get elected if you spoke like that... and if you didn’t say these things until after you were elected, no one would listen to you anyway (see Ron Paul)... I know, I was elected to town council and tried to set our budget so that we were only spending for things over which we had jurisdiction... hah!... I was out voted 5-1 nearly every time...
But back to Obama... at least he’s promising us “change that we can believe in”
joe4liberty | Mar 3, 2009 | Reply
Let’s not be so negative. After all we are a country where anyone can be anything they want to be. We have a black president, we have women running for the president of the USA, and you can grow up to be someone who completely fails at his job and still can get a $29 million bonus.
bonnie cynic | Mar 6, 2009 | Reply