What I am suggesting is that earmarks not be included in the budget. I understand that if they were not earmarks they would still be spent, but thats pretty much what would happen with any reductions. Stop earmarks and reduce the tax, its a start.
So what's an earmark and if we don't tell federal agencies how to spend the money then how do we know what we are paying for?
For example, if the President allocates $4.881 billion dollars to the Civil Works Program of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to "do their job," is that an earmark? How about if the President allocates the following amounts in the following accounts:
$1.69B for Construction
$2.361B for Operations and Maintenance
$240M for Miss. River and Tributaries
$30M for Flood Control and Emergencies
$104M for Investigations
$193M for Regulatory
$185M for Expenses
$6M for the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works)
$130M for the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program
-$58M for Cancellation of unobligated expenses
Is the above earmarking or programmatic funding? Or are they the same?
To take it to it's lowest level, the President also directs monies to projects and programs that his administration through the Office of Management and Budget have decided are in the Nation's interest. (I won't get into the details of their decision-making process as it is very confusing). For example, the Administration believes that $7M of the Operations & Maintenance Account should be allocated for the National Coastal Mapping Program. The Senate believes it should be $9.5M while the House says $0. The Corps themselves say that they need $13M. Is this an earmark?
My point is there are some programs that are earmarks and a number of agencies (such as the Corps) that work like a consulting firm where there positions are funded through project or program-specific earmarking. There is no annual allocation for all staff- it's project or program driven so without specific direction (i.e. earmarking) the system fails. Or we could just write the Corps a check for $4.881 Billion and tell them to "do their job."
Before we say that's ok we need to remember that many of these programs and project's that are critical to the nation's
economy and defense (i.e. maintenance of ports and harbors for commerce). These are two areas where R's and D's (and maybe even 30A Shopper) agree that we need to invest.
The current dialogue of " wholesale banning earmarks" by elected officials as a way to reduce expenditures is not realistic in some instances but my explanation would get lost in the 24 hour news cycle. The reality of "banning earmarks" only allows the Executive Branch to determine where the money is spent when the Constitution says that it is Congress' job? So the real question is where are those Constitutional Conservatives now? Do they want to give that responsibility to the Executive Branch.
I hope the Transportation example by Rep. Mica and the Corps example I wrote about shows that the issue is much more complex than the 30-second soundbite that gets people elected.
