A war on earmarks has been declared by Sen. Jim DeMint, the South Carolina Republican who has made himself a spokesman for tea party priorities.
Sen. DeMint said Tuesday he’ll force a showdown with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on DeMint’s demand that the internal Republican Party rules bar any of its Senate members from using the system to spend federal dollars in their state.
Earmarks are used to send federal dollars to states and congressional districts to build a highway or a bridge, to give a specified police department a grant, to fund a community development project, or pay for any other special project that a senator or a representative wants to take credit for funding.
Earmarks have been singled out for political attack because they are tacked onto other appropriation measures without debate, without committee approval and, most important, without the administration’s approval. They are, in other words, off-budget spending.
This fact makes them attractive to Sen. McConnell and other old-timers in both parties.
Talking to a reporter, Sen. McConnell said giving up earmarks would “provide a blank check to President Barack Obama” because his administration would then determine where money for popular programs would go.
In a speech to the conservative Heritage Foundation last week, Sen. McConnell said, “You could eliminate every congressional earmark and you would save no money, it’s really an argument about discretion.”
Sen. McConnell’s point is well-taken. For an example, an important part of every state’s transportation budget comes from the federal government each year. From that appropriation, a state representative or senator could “earmark” a specific amount to be spent on a particular project within his state or district. The effect would not be to increase federal spending on transportation, but to give that particular member of Congress the power to decide how that chunk of the federal allocation to his state would be spent.
Those who defend the practice say they know their state’s needs better than Washington bureaucrats do. What they do NOT say is that they love to send out press releases taking credit for the money they, and they alone, made certain would be spent on a very visible asset for their voters.
THE OTHER fact that is being downplayed in this battle between the newly elected budget-slashers and the political veterans is that the role that earmarks play in the ballooning of the federal deficit is so small as to be insignificant. All of the federal money spent through earmarked appropriations in fiscal year 2010 amounted to about one-half of 1 percent of the $3.5 trillion budget.
And, as Sen. McConnell said, almost all of that would have been spent through the budget if it had not been earmarked, so the money to be saved by ending the practice is small, indeed.
So what should a good tea partier do to help bring deficits down?
Step one would be to increase federal revenue by $700 billion over the next decade by allowing taxes on the wealthy to go back to the 2000 level.
The deficit could be hammered down by $4 trillion over that same 10 years by allowing all of the tax reductions put in place under President George W. Bush to expire.
Making those enormous strides toward fiscal sanity would not require any member of Congress, liberal, conservative or moderate, to take any action.
All they would be required to do is let time pass. The rate reductions are scheduled to end on Jan. 1, 2011. The sunset provisions were included in the measures because the Congressional Budget Office knew the nation couldn’t afford the cuts long term.
Going back to the 2000 tax rates might eventually mean going back to the 2000 budget surplus. Exactly what every good conservative should want. What say you, Sen. DeMint?
— Emerson Lynn, jr.
