Atmospheric scientist Cliff Mass thinks Washington state received one.
Consider the coastal radar that will be installed next September on the central Washington coast. Without earmarks this extraordinarily important device, one that will save lives and greatly enhance our lives, would not have happened.
A classic argument against earmarks is that all appropriations should go through the normal process, with budget requests from agencies vetted by congressional committees. Sound good. But for over a decade many of us tried to go this route in pushing for the coastal radar. The case was compelling but some folks in the National Weather Service opposed it and letters from Congressmen and Senators fell on deaf ears.
Please note: I am not endorsing — or rejecting — Mass's argument; I am simply presenting it for you to think about. Without good estimates on lives saved, and a quantitative estimate on how this would enhance our lives, I can't even tell whether this is a good project that should have been funded in the regular way.
I would add that I am suspicious about it because our junior senator, Maria Cantwell, comes from the Green superstition wing of the Democratic party, and our senior senator, Patty Murray, comes from the "no rocket scientist" wing of the Democratic party. I don't trust either senator's judgment, especially on scientific matters.
(I do agree entirely with Mass's thought that bureaucracies may not always understand local problems; in fact I consider that true, more or less by definition.)
I am presenting his argument because I think responsible citizens should look at arguments from both sides. (For a similar reason, I think Mass should have explained why the National Weather Service did not want this radar. Assuming he could do so, without offending some of his sponsors, that is.)
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
Posted by Jim Miller at November 15, 2010 03:28 PM | Email ThisI disagree with Lysander that earmarks are examples of Congress appropriating money. In practice, individual representatives determine earmarks, not Congress as a body.
The one defense of earmarks is that they are a sort of slush fund for projects that don't pass the normal process for funding. Therefore earmarks will tend to be more politically popular locally than consistent with federal priorities. Arguably there is some value to having both the normal and earmark processes to make sure no good project falls through the cracks. But personally I'd rather say that, if a congressperson can't convince an agency to include a pet project, it doesn't deserve to be federally funded.
Earmarks serve a useful purpose, but like anything can be abused. Stopping the abuse is what you want, and where your efforts should be targeted.
But the pending battle over earmarks in appropriation bills has nothing to do with any principle and every thing to do with a fig leaf.
Serious question - I've never really contemplated where they derive their authority to spend our money on this stuff. It's probably obvious, if so, sorry.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on November 15, 2010 05:08 PMFor the amount of time and energy spent on Obamacare, how many "earmarks" could have gone through the normal appropriations process?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on November 15, 2010 06:39 PMThe problem that arises from them is more a function of gummint spending rules than the "vetted" earmarks themselves (however, the midnite specials deserve their contemptuous scorn). An appropriation is a public law, so if Congress appropriates money for some purpose, it can only be used for that purpose. If it isn't spent withing five years or so, as many earmarks aren't because they were applied to (to coin a phrase) less than "shovel ready" projects, the money has to be returned unused and probably unusable. I'd give some examples but that would certainly "out" me and I wish to remain anonymous.
I hope the Repubicans can stop this silly stuff and spend time on something more important. Okay, I know that the most important time of every politico is getting reelected but you'd hope that every once in a while the taxpayers' interest would be served.
Posted by: BOB R on November 15, 2010 06:53 PMProbably not. I've got a Mass collection, and appreciate the work he does. I also think the radar is a pretty good idea.
I'm wary of all the true believers who want to turn science into a tool to force their ideology upon the rest of us, so far they're following the rule of law (protest and vote, "activate" whatever the hell that means), but deep down their want their ideas to be true, and many don't care who gets in the way. See the WTO.
Posted by: chrisn on November 15, 2010 06:55 PMWell, if Jim Miller can make ad hominem attacks, it must mean the science is wrong, or at least beyond the capacity of mere women to understand.
Yeah, Jim, we all trust your judgement on scientific matters. Keep repeating that until you're sure.
(BTW, how did all of your posts on Senator Murray being "no rocket scientist" work in the recent election?)
Posted by: tensor on November 15, 2010 07:11 PMHowever, the problem is that the earmark process, completely legal under the constitution, has been warped into a way to get broader legislation passed that otherwise would not get passed.
As such, I like the idea of banning earmarks, but after passing appropriation bills, allowing a passing of a second bill that has the specific spending authorization related to the first appropriation bill. That could be the accumulation of the earmarks for that particular bill. Allow for congressional amendments to the second bill, but no way could you have Executive signing statements or line item vetos, because those earmarks, however atrocious they are, are granted to Congress by the Constitition to allow them to dictate the spending.
Posted by: Doug on November 15, 2010 07:59 PMI think rather than banning earmarks, it would be better to have a requirement that congress read bills before it can be voted on. Perhaps 1 day for every 20 pages should be required between when a bill is presented and voted on. Otherwise you end up with way too many complications about what is or is not an earmark or you end up giving way too much power to the executive.
Posted by: Lysander on November 15, 2010 08:26 PMA weather radar is a good investment and kudos to Dr. Mass for helping secure it - Cantwell and Murray have done at least a few good things like this for WA. There could also be laws on earmarks, that allow them under certain conditions - by establishing a few regulations. However, I'd really like to see many regulations removed. That process would decrease spending that may close to make up for the removal of earmarks. The legislation is only a start - the GOP needs to follow through on cutting spending and decreasing the debt.
Posted by: KDS on November 15, 2010 08:34 PMI also disagree about it being a good earmark. I am someone who will greatly profit from it's location with better weather forecasting, which brings me to this question: If a $7 million item has value, then why aren't the feds trying to get some of the cost from the people who will profit from it?
It bugs me with most of the Federal spending. Find ways to pay for things by taxing those who will benefit. If there is a wider range of benefit, then tax a wider range.
Posted by: Doug on November 15, 2010 09:49 PM134 billion to our childrens debt
Thanks to OBAMA. "One Big Ass Mistake America"
Posted by: gs on November 15, 2010 10:39 PMAs it is now it is a mockery that has produced many an empty Jack Murtha Airport in the middle of nowhere.
Fiscal sanity. This is the simple message that won Rs the day on 11/2 and will keep them winning if they stick to task.
Posted by: Jeff B. on November 15, 2010 11:38 PMSTOP the madness and this crazy spending.
Posted by: Medic/Vet on November 16, 2010 06:55 AM"If you want to cut spending, just cut spending. Don't get embroiled in an arcane debate about the procedures for specifying how appropriated money is to be spent."
"The way to eliminate pork is to get the federal government out of the infrastructure business, out of the economic development business and out of the research business. That would be a real change and that's why it won't happen while jokers like McConnell are in charge."
Posted by: Lysander on November 16, 2010 07:41 AMhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png
Look at what we spend:
Defense: 23%
Social Security: 20%
Medicare/caid: 19%
Why so much noise about earmarks? Are Republicans willing to also push in public to lop off 5% each from defense, Social Security, and Medicare/caid?
Posted by: Joe Szilagyi on November 16, 2010 03:06 PMThe noise you and they are hearing are the sharpening of pitchforks and the lighting of torches.
Earmarks have their place and time, unfortunately they have been abused, and those who have abused them are still in the Senate.
Posted by: Doug on November 16, 2010 03:30 PMFor your list, which of those three are mentioned as explicit reasons for the Federal Government?
And what about the attempts by President Bush to save Social Security, by increasing the long-term returns of the SS Fund so that it moves from sub-inflation rates (which necessarily require an ever-increasing share of taxation)?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on November 18, 2010 09:46 PM