Earmarks and the People's Business

About the earmark flap, it seems fair to say that not all of them are pet projects devised by sinister, sleep-deprived politicians. No doubt some are just cheap ploys to attract hometown support, but others are worthy ventures that wouldn't get much attention as individual bills but, added to larger pieces of legislation, receive funding. Such insertions may bloat the budget, but while legislators swear to uphold the Constitution, they are elected by the people "back home" so it doesn't seem unreasonable that part of what they do in Congress reflects the needs and wishes of their constituents.

Nevertheless, the earmark controversy is an issue Senator McCain thinks he can control. But there are some pitfalls in making that assumption. McCain accuses Obama of breaking what was actually his own promise to free budgets of earmarks. In any case this particular budget was negotiated prior to Obama's election and earmarks are split 40% to 60% Republicans to Democrats with the dollar amount almost equal.

In addition, McCain's ‘alarm' over earmarks rings a bit hollow as does his claim that he doesn't participate in the congressional game of ‘pork'. His efforts on behalf of Arizona developers who contribute to his political campaigns are well-documented. It would seem one needn't engage in standard forms of earmarking to support special projects for the home crowd. A Washington Post article in September, 2008, described legislation McCain helped shepherd through Congress that provided the SunCor Corporation with a lucrative land deal - - a firm run by long-time McCain supporter, Steven A. Betts, who raised more than $100,000 for McCain's presidential run.

McCain's spokesman denied any undue influence saying "At no time during consideration of this legislation was there any involvement by officials of SunCor". Still, SunCor came up with respect to a $14 million ‘provision' Senator McCain inserted into a 2003 Defense bill, funds needed, he explained, "to preserve Arizona's Luke Air Force Base" which had been threatened with closure. The land deal did benefit the Air Force, and apparently there was bi-partisan support for it, as is often the case with earmarks in other states. Independent appraisals of the property, however, fell well below what SunCor received in payment for its land. AZCentral.com, May, 2008.

And then there's McCain's pal, Charles Keating, of the notoriously failed Lincoln S&L. No land deals, just as a Senate Ethics committee investigation decided, "poor judgment" on McCain's part in pressuring bank regulators to ease up their investigations of the thrift." LA Times, Oct. 2008. None of these transactions were deemed illegal, yet they serve to illustrate how things can ‘get done' without necessarily resorting to the dreaded "earmark" process.

The point is that, while these matters have largely been put to rest, McCain is hardly someone to be delivering lectures about political virtue. His posturing makes clear that he is, with most of his party, less interested in solving problems than in making political points and playing "gotcha" with President Obama. He obviously hoped to force him to veto the current budget in order to make good on what he claimed was the president's promise about earmarks or to seem otherwise hypocritical. The fact is, however, that Obama promised to review the process and reform it, not do away with it altogether; McCain has tried to make his own campaign promise Obama's.

Earmarks are important to both sides of the aisle; conversations about whether they belong in this or any budget should take place in The House and The Senate. Senator McCain's proposed amendment that would have mandated the removal of all earmarks failed; he was unable to persuade senators in sufficient numbers to agree to it. His quarrel is more appropriately addressed to congressional colleagues than the president.

Perhaps in the future, members of the House and Senate should be required to rise in support of their earmarks or withdraw them. It's probably time to get specific about just who's requesting what and for what purpose not just huff and puff about this one particular form of special interest. Far too much energy is being expended on peripheral issues, too much consideration being awarded to Republicans who threaten to obstruct everything from judicial appointments to budgets. A sixty-vote requirement shouldn't be the metric against which passage of legislation in the Senate is measured; let Republicans mount as many filibusters as they think the public will tolerate and see what happens.