San Diego Union Tribune January 22, 2006 Pork spending is threatened in ethics push By Finlay Lewis COPLEY NEWS SERVICE WASHINGTON – The stampede on Capitol Hill to cleanse congressional ethics may end up trampling the often-secretive practice of earmarking billions for dubious parochial projects, as deficit hawks seek to merge the battle against corruption with the effort to balance the federal budget. Earmarks, otherwise known as pork barrel spending, are estimated to have cost taxpayers between $27 billion and $47 billion last year, depending on how the practice is defined. Either way, the amount of federal revenue that flowed outside of normal legislative channels represents a pittance when compared with last year's deficit of $319 billion. However, critics of earmarking, such as Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., point to the conviction of former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-Rancho Santa Fe, as a morality tale illustrating how the practice invites corruption. They also say it distorts budgetary decision-making in indirect ways that cost the Treasury additional untold billons. Eliminating earmarks, McCain said last week, would "have a huge impact fiscally." Advertisement Some students of the federal budget believe McCain has a point. "Yes, it's true that earmarks are only 1 percent of all federal spending, but earmarks have a cultural effect on Congress that is much larger than their cost," said Brian Riedl, a budget expert at the conservative Heritage Foundation. "It fuses Congress together with lobbyists and creates a culture of government spending as a means to re-election, which bleeds into other areas." While earmarking takes different forms, it frequently involves a lobbyist representing a client who is seeking federal money or a lawmaker eager to curry favor with voters through the expenditure of taxpayer dollars. Either way, the crucial step hinges on persuading a powerful member or staffer on the House or Senate Appropriations Committee to slip the earmarked project into the final version of a massive spending bill on its way to a vote on the floor. Once there, few members will have time to read or digest the entire bill. This process avoids normal legislative scrutiny whereby separate committees review budget proposals and set policies authorizing specific spending, with the actual amounts to be determined by appropriators. Cunningham, who resigned his San Diego-area seat in the wake of his guilty plea to corruption charges, exploited this system to benefit two defense contractors who showered him with $2.4 million in bribes. According to a study by Citizens Against Government Waste, a fiscally conservative watchdog group, Congress approved 1,439 earmarked projects in 1995 costing $10.1 billion. That was the year Republicans took control of Congress after years in the minority. By last year, the number of earmarks had risen to nearly 14,000 at a cost of $27.3 billion. McCain, using a more expansive definition of earmarks, toted up about $47 billion in 2005 earmarks. Last week, McCain argued that eliminating earmarks would reap budgetary rewards far in excess of the face value of the earmarks themselves. As an example of how an earmark can affect policy far into the future, he pointed to language inserted into appropriations legislation nearly a decade ago that has blocked an attempt to auction analog broadcast spectrum. "So, tens of billions of dollars of spectrum was not turned back to the federal government for auction. . . . It is language that is put in that has a profound effect on policy, which always has fiscal impacts, but the earmarks alone – roughly $47 billion – would be a nice start," McCain said. Stan Collender, a former congressional budget aide who now consults on fiscal policy issues, acknowledged that eliminating earmarks by themselves would barely dent the deficit. But, Collender added: "Earmarks are used to buy votes. . . . To the extent that spending bills or tax cuts would never get approved if there weren't earmarks in them, eliminating earmarks could in fact have a pretty substantial impact." »Next Story»