Earmarks

One of the things that is going around in political circles nowadays is the fact that politicians are all railing against a Congressional practice known as earmarks. For those who may not know, earmarks are defined by different people in different ways. Generally, the definitions that follow are pretty much on target.

One type of earmark, the soft earmark, is the one in which a member of Congress successfully inserts language into a conference committee report or spending bill which urges or recommends that a certain amount of federal money be spent for a specific purpose, usually in his/her home state or district. These are known as soft earmarks because although they do not have the force of law, they are treated as if they do by the agencies having charge of the funds, in order to not rankle members of Congress or have their budgets cut by the Congress in the future.

Hard earmarks are language put into bills or committee reports by members of Congress which direct (not recommend) agencies to appropriate funds in a certain way to certain projects in a certain amount. These earmarks are decreasing in popularity because of relatively recent ethics legislation which requires members of Congress to publicly disclose when they use this process. The soft earmark is not defined by Congress as an earmark; therefore, it is a way to circumvent this disclosure process.

Hard earmarks are not necessarily evil. In fact, under the Constitution, the Congress is required to “pass legislation directing all appropriations of money drawn from the U.S. Treasury.” (Article I, Section 9) (Wikipedia) Congress has the power to direct specific funds to specific projects. In practice, however, in recent times Congress has appropriated a sum of money to an agency and then gives the agency the authority to spend that sum as needed. This essentially gives the Executive branch the final say in how (or whether) the money will be spent. It is understandable that the Executive branch would not take kindly to the Congress taking back that authority (which the Constitution already gives to the Legislative branch).

I think what is happening is a backlash against the so-called soft earmarks; those which escape the scrutiny of ethics legislation and can remain anonymous “requests”. I believe that Gov. Palin, for example, (and as demonstrated by her response to questions in the recent ABC interview) is not against the appropriation of money for specific projects, but rather is against the methods now used (soft earmarks) to do so.

The ethics legislation which brought about the use of soft earmarks (in order to thwart the purpose of the legislation) was enacted early in 2007. It is entirely consistent with Gov. Palin’s actions and statements regarding earmarks that, although she is not opposed to the hard earmarks (remember that the Congress has specific Constitutional authority to use hard earmarks) which benefited her state and community in years past, she is opposed to the thwarting of the intent of the ethics legislation passed last year by the creation and use of soft earmarks. Senator McCain has also made his displeasure well-known on this issue. Our collective misunderstanding of this issue has led us to incorrect conclusions and wrong assumptions.

I have to wonder just how much people pay attention to what is actually being said and what is actually going on in Washington. Additionally, I have to wonder whether people really know what the Constitution provides and allows. I have a much clearer picture of the earmark brouhaha now, and spent only about 15 minutes on-line (yes, I used Wiki, but I also used material from official non-partisan government agencies) finding out the particulars of the issue. If you’ve stayed with me down to this point, you also have a clearer understanding of the issue, and are probably more informed than 98% of the American public.