Goodbye to Earmarks?

John Murtha must be rolling over in his grave.

The late Pennsylvania Democrat, who died last month, was renowned for his use of appropriations earmarks to steer work to projects and companies in his district.

Yesterday, House Democrats banned earmarks to for-profit companies in appropriations bills. Today, House Republicans adopted a one-year moratorium on all earmarks.

Unfortunately, the Senate isn’t ready to join this “good government” competition. Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, who chairs the Senate Appropriations Committee, doesn’t see the need to ban earmarks. Earmarks—the ability to insert provisions in bills that benefit specific projects or entities—are what makes a seat on the Appropriations Committee valuable. You can use that earmarking power to reward your friends and bring home the bacon to your district.

The new House rule would have resulted in 1,000 fewer earmarks if it had been in place last year, according to the House Appropriations Committee.

The ban “ensures that for-profit companies no longer reap the rewards of congressional earmarks and limits the influence of lobbyists on members of Congress,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said.

Inspectors general at each agency also will be directed to audit at least 5 percent of earmarks that go to nonprofit organizations in order to make sure that businesses aren’t using nonprofits as a front.

With this move, businesses that want to do business with the government will have to earn it the old-fashioned way: They’ll have to offer agencies the best deal at the best price. Having a congressional sugar daddy won’t be enough anymore. It’s a big step toward draining the swamp of insider deals that have made many Americans disgusted with Congress.

Of course, many Americans are happy when their members of Congress secure funding for new transportation projects, university buildings, and other projects that benefit the public. That’s why it was a gutsy move by House Republicans to forsake those earmarks as well (although they can still get their senators to go to bat for them).

There are two problems with these kinds of earmarks. First, if a project only benefits a local community, why should taxpayers from all over the country pay for it? Federal dollars should be spent for regional or national projects. Localities should fund their own goodies themselves.

Second, earmarks for pork projects are susceptible to the same type of influence peddling that creeps into earmarks for specific businesses. A new Center for Public Integrity analysis found that more than 100 home builders, real estate developers and local authorities spent more than $5.5 million on lobbying for federal transportation projects, such as new highway exits. About half of these development interests also made nearly $7 million in political contributions over the past five years.

Americans for Prosperity, an antitax group, went on a 15,000-mile tour in 2006 to expose the 50 most egregious congressional earmarks. It praised House Republicans for including all earmarks in its ban.

“Our foundation’s recent study confirmed earmarking works all too well at buying votes for reelection, so this decision to refrain from earmarking took real political courage,” said Phil Kerpen, AFP’s vice president for policy.

It was also good political gamesmanship for Republicans to try to one-up Democrats on this issue. Who knows where this could lead? Maybe to more sensible, less political decisions on how the taxpayers’ money is spent.