Earmarks and How Nothing Really Changes

When Republicans controlled Congress during the Bush administration, one of the many scandals that just ticked off voters to no end was the never-ending practice of earmarks. When Democrats took over in 2006, they vowed to clean up Congress’ image, but the reality is they’re just as bad.

Earmarks are the way in which members of Congress insert targeted spending proposals, often at the committee or subcommittee level and more often than not for projects of dubious value. “Pork” is the common name for the projects.

Though some earmarks can serve worthy local government projects and community programs, the vast majority are nothing more than costly fluff for the folks back home in a congressman’s district. (Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Sixth District, is one of the few politicians who limits his earmark requests; in 2008, for example, he was able to get federal dollars for Lynchburg’s combined sewer overflow project and the ongoing restoration of Thomas Jefferson’s home, Poplar Forest.)

New Feature

Sign up for our newsletter e-mailed to you at 8 a.m. each day Monday through Friday.

Click here

But in Washington, it’s just more the same … only the players are different.

The $636 billion defense appropriations bill now making its way through Congress is a prime example of Congress just not having the gumption or the ability to keep its hands out of the public till.

President Barack Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates won a big battle in the U.S. Senate last week with the vote to end the F-22 fighter-jet program; Gates and top Pentagon planners say they have enough of the jets and want to devote resources to the new types of conflicts.

Well, the folks over in the House of Representatives evidently didn’t get the message from their brethren down the hall.

Representatives earlier this week just went hog-wild, adding $7 billion in earmarks to the defense bill, which they’ll likely vote on today. All for projects the Pentagon says it doesn’t need or want; Obama has even threatened to pull out his veto pen.

Members of the House Appropriations Committee, for example, tacked on additional C-17 transport plans and new F-18 fighter jets, along with keeping alive several outdated and troubled missile interceptor programs and a new fleet of presidential helicopters the president said he doesn’t need.

And the scary thing, according to The Washington Post, is that they did it all in a matter of minutes. In an 18-minute markup Monday, they managed to spend more than $2.75 billion.

What makes the Appropriations Committee actions even more galling is the fact that embattled Rep. John P. Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat, chairs the defense subcommittee. He’s currently at the center of an ethics scandal involving defense earmarks for clients of a lobbying firm with close connections to him and his staff.

That troubled missile interceptor program? Well, that’s run by Northrop Grumman which is building a tech center in Murtha’s district. It’s worth an $80 million earmark. The presidential helicopter fleet? Run by another firm — Lockheed Martin — with close ties to Murtha that resulted in a $400 million earmark. The entire program has been beset by delays and cost overruns, doubling the price tag from $6.5 billion to more than $13 billion.

It’s a political culture typified by congressmen such as Murtha and scores of Democrats and Republicans before him that have soured Americans on politics.

President Obama truly would represent “change we can believe in” if he holds true to his promise to veto the defense bill if this pork-laden House version makes it to his desk.

But it’s Washington, and we’re not holding our breath.