Dem earmark ban would still allow a lot of spending to continue

House Democrats’ moratorium on earmarks would not have
prevented the Bridge to Nowhere, the Airport for No One, or some of the other
recent infamous examples of spending.

Democrats’ new ban on earmarks to for-profit companies is
projected to reduce earmarks by at least 1,000. Yet, the ban would only apply
to appropriations bills so thousands of earmarks in authorization, tax and
tariff, as well as transportation measures would continue unabated under the
Democrats’ plan.

{mosads}“I support the plan because we have do something about the
abuses going on with earmarks,” said Rep. Jim Oberstar (D-Minn.), chairman of
the Transportation and Infrastructure committee.

Oberstar, however, said he does not consider money lawmakers
specifically designate for transportation construction in the highway bill as
earmarks, but instead called them “high-priority projects.”

In all fiscal 2010 measures, for instance, Taxpayers for
Common Sense (TCS) found 9,500 earmarks worth $15.9 billion. The group gives
Democrats credit for taking on for-profit earmarks as a first-step to start
ridding the system of pay-to-play corruption, but said much more is needed to
curb the problem.

“For profit earmarks are ground zero for pay-to-play so it
makes sense to rein them in,” said TCS spokesman Steve Ellis.

Still, the Democrats’ moratorium fails to address some of
the most recent and egregious scandals related to the earmarking system.

One of the most striking examples is the so-called Bridge to
Nowhere, the overpass connecting Ketchikan, Alaska, to Gravina Islands’ 50
residents and the Ketchikan airport. Former Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) and
Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska) championed the $223 million earmark, which was cited
as a symbol of pork barrel spending during the 2008 presidential campaign. The
funds were earmarked in the federal highway bill, not a spending measure, and
directed to the state of Alaska, not a for-profit company.

Another earmark that would have survived such a moratorium
is the John Murtha Airport, which was ridiculed in the press as the Airport for
No One, after reports surfaced that it served just 30 people per day with just
18 flights a week. Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), who died last month, was one of
Congress’s most unapologetic earmarkers. He directed more than $150 million in
earmarks to the Johnstown-Cambria Airport Authority for the facility over the
last 20 years.

Another example of controversial earmarks the new reform
would not touch is a nonprofit defense research center at Pennsylvania State
University that collected nearly $250 million in earmarks through Murtha, then
channeled a significant portion of the funds to companies that were among
Murtha’s campaign supporters.

According to a report in the Washington Post, officials at
the center regularly consulted with two “handlers” close to Murtha, one of whom
was a lobbyist for the PMA Group, a firm that recently disbanded in the wake of
an FBI raid on its offices.

Democrats’ pledge to prevent earmarks from flowing unchecked
to for-profit companies also would not have addressed several other high-profile
earmark scandals.

For instance, earmarks won by imprisoned lobbyist Jack
Abramoff benefited the gambling interests of Native American tribes, not
companies. Lawmakers also have faced scrutiny in recent years for earmarking
millions to federal highway projects near their or their top campaign
contributors’ real estate holdings.

House Republicans prohibition of all earmarks goes much
farther, but is being criticized as an election-year gimmick because it only
covers this year’s bills. Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.), a former chairman of the
Appropriations panel, is supporting the ban but is also highlighting the fact
that it expires after one year.

Senate opposition could stymie real progress this year. Sen.
Daniel Inyoue (D-Hawaii), the chairman of the Appropriations panel, and his
Republican counterpart, Sen. Thad Cochran (Miss.), have both rejected the
House’s earmark moratorium in the Senate.

If the Senate continues to reject calls for a full
Congressional moratorium, House members could simply ask senators in their
state to request earmarks they want, and the companies wanting them will
inevitably start lobbying (and doling out campaign contributions to) senators
instead of House members.

Senators, however, are not immune to the shifting winds of
political pressure. Missouri Democratic Senate candidate Robin Carnahan is
trying to position herself to the right of her opponent, Rep. Roy Blunt
(R-Mo.), on fiscal issues by calling for a complete ban on all earmarks. Blunt
is a member of the Republican conference, which just swore off all earmarks,
but he has requested them and defended them in the past.

Carnahan’s move follows the model set by Sen. Claire
McCaskill (D-Mo.), a leading fiscal conservative vice in the Senate.

Ellis argues that it’s up to President Barack Obama to force
the Senate to give up its addiction to earmarks and force a full ban. Obama
pointed out the problem with earmarks in his most recent State of the Union
address and called on Congress to reduce earmark abuses and post all earmark
request on a single website, a component of House Democrats’ new plan.

“The president has the bully pulpit and has some political
capital on the issue,” Ellis said. “I could easily foresee a situation in which
he lays down a marker and says he’s going to veto any bill that contains
earmarks for for-profit companies.”

An inquiry to the White House press office on earmarks was
referred to Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

“The Administration is committed to rigorous accountability and
transparency and the President has made his reform principles clear —
fewer earmarks, more transparency, and greater accountability for how
tax dollars are spent,” said OMB spokesman Tom Gavin. “That’s why we have made public all the earmark
data from Fiscal Year 2009, and expect to post the 2010 data within a
month. We are committed to ending the old way of doing business, and
the beginning of a new era of responsibility and accountability that
the American people have every right to expect and demand.”

OMB Director Peter Orszag applauded House Democrats’ anti-earmark
action and urged the Senate to support it in a blog posting Thursday.

“The president believes that transparency is crucial to
improving government, and that efforts like the one put forward by the House
will help to avoid having taxpayers dollars being used for sweetheart deals for
private companies,” Orszag wrote. “These steps raise the bar on accountability
and transparency, and we urge the Senate to take similar steps.”

This story was updated at 4:30 p.m.