« Russian restaurants around the world | Main | Assorted links »
Are we winning the fight against earmarks?
Maybe not:
Eight months after Democrats vowed to shine light on the dark art of “earmarking” money for pet projects, many lawmakers say the new visibility has only intensified the competition for projects by letting each member see exactly how many everyone else is receiving...
The earmark frenzy hit fever pitch in recent days, even as the Senate passed new rules that allow more public scrutiny of them.
Far from causing embarrassment, the new transparency has raised the value of earmarks as a measure of members’ clout. Indeed, lawmakers have often competed to have their names attached to individual earmarks and rushed to put out press releases claiming credit for the money they bring home.
Here is the full story. A simple model is that such transparency imposes a large, one-time cost on lawmakers and a public relations hit. But once this hit is taken, the new marginal calculus still brings lots of earmarks. The "good" news is this:
...the Democratic totals are less than half the record set by Republicans when they controlled Congress in 2005, but they are far higher than the levels just 10 years ago.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on August 5, 2007 at 08:35 AM in Political Science | Permalink
Comments
My apologies for posting this in an entirely inappropriate place-- but I think the first 15 award-winning entries for your Complementary book offer would make interesting reading!
Posted by: Manjira Dasgupta at Aug 5, 2007 9:20:25 AM
How large is the one-time-hit, really?
I would think most of the outrage aimed at particular congressmen would come from outside their district.
I wonder how upset the locals were about the bridge to nowhere.
It certainly tarnishes the institution in theory (though I think we're pretty enured by now), but does it really hurt the
individuals?
Posted by: Jeff at Aug 5, 2007 9:25:01 AM
Perhaps earmarks are a symptom of something else. Let's assume that the usual mechanism for how projects get funded has broken down.
When I worked on grant-based projects, the sequence was something like this:
1. Government department allocates a budget amount to a class of projects.
2. Department solicits proposals from those seeking funds.
3. Independent review committee evaluates the proposals on the basis of "merit".
4. Awards are granted based upon recommendations.
5. Project compliance officers keep track of progress and can turn off the funding if the project fails to progress properly.
What we may be seeing is that step 3 has been replaced by:
3. Politically motivated review committee evaluates proposals based upon which will best serve to elect or re-elect party members, or to payback big contributors.
In this case it is necessary to find a way to get projects funded that are not politically connected. This, of course, leaves things open to excess and corruption. That's why the review committees were "independent" in the first place.
Some of it may be feathering one's cap, but not all.
Posted by: robertdfeinman at Aug 5, 2007 10:48:02 AM
More proof that people really don't care. If their elected official is seen as bringing home the bacon for their own district then there's no harm.
It's only when an opposing political side can successfully attach "greedy politics" to other issues in the media that people will seemingly take notice.
The Republicans were spending way too much by their own standards, the war in Iraq was a constant focus, et cetera, and then people seemingly cared about earmarks.
The only difference is that when the Left abuses such things, it's politics that needs fixing, whereas when the RIght does it, the Republicans themselves are singularly guilty. This affords the Left wing to be able to "fix" the problem later with minimal attached guilt. Kind of like McCain and his ilk bringing campaign finance reform as if they were all just victims of the system.
Posted by: Ray G at Aug 5, 2007 11:32:54 AM
An interesting website for viewing the pork is www.cagw.org -Citizens Against Government Waste...It's a taxpayer advocacy group that monitors all pork projects in congress...some interesting reads.
Posted by: Sean Burns at Aug 5, 2007 12:52:55 PM
The war in Iraq is an order of magnitude more costly than all the earmarks.
Posted by: Barbar at Aug 5, 2007 3:47:47 PM
