{"articles":[{"reaction_config":[{"text":"Support","color":"#2ca788","stance":"support"},{"text":"Oppose","color":"#ef3e42","stance":"oppose"}],"id":17568,"title":"House Democrats to Consider Reviving Earmarks in New Congress","html_content":"

by Causes | 12.17.18

Congress’ eight year ban on earmarks could come to an end when Democrats take control the House of Representatives in January.

What are earmarks?

Earmarks refer to provisions in spending bills that are targeted to a specific state, locality, congressional district, or entity that allocate funding in a way other than a legal or administrative formula or a competitive award process.

They’re sometimes referred to as \"pork barrel legislation\" because earmarks allow lawmakers to pour cash into each others’ non-essential pet projects to help with their reputations back home, in exchange for support for a broader spending bill.

At their peak in the mid-2000s, Congress used earmarks frequently, attaching 13,997 to legislation in 2005. According to a 2006 CRS report, $67 billion in earmarks were allocated that year alone.

Why were earmarks banned?

Because, frankly, things had gotten out of hand and millions of taxpayer dollars were getting funneled to projects of little national significance.

Perhaps the most infamous earmark is the \"Bridge to Nowhere\" ― a $398 million project to connect an Alaskan island with a population of 50 people and its airport to the mainland. Members of the state’s delegation fought hard for the bridge, led by the current Congress’s longest-serving active member Rep. Don Young (R-AK), but lawmakers ended up dropping the earmark. (The island is currently served by a ferry.)

Earmarks also proved an ethical temptation too great for some lawmakers. Former Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-CA) was sentenced to eight years in prison after accepting at least $2.4 million in bribes related to earmarks he attached to military spending legislation that passed through the committees he sat on.

Starting in 2011, the House and Senate effectively banned earmarks through the committee procedures and party rules that were enforced by leadership ― although it should be noted that there is no formal prohibition on earmarks in either chamber’s rules.

Why earmarks?

Earmark advocates say that their restoration would take funding authority away from unelected bureaucrats and give some of it back to Congress thereby restoring the legislative branch’s constitutional responsibility for budgeting.

Among them is incoming House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD), who said that “Republicans eliminated earmarks altogether, and the result has been an abdication of Congress’ power of the purse,” during a September speech at an event hosted by End Citizens United.

Proponents have also argued that bringing back earmarks could help lawmakers gain the support needed to pass all twelve, individual federal funding bills (which they haven’t been able to do in years) rather than relying on last-minute, massive omnibus spending packages that no one has time to read or continuing resolutions that kick the can down the road.

What will Congress do?

It remains to be seen whether newly-empowered House Democrats restore earmarks in some form, but Senate Republicans seem unlikely to follow suit if earmarks are revived in the lower chamber. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said of the matter:

“We have a conference rule related to earmarks on the Senate side. I cannot imagine that will change.”

While it’s doubtful either chamber will try to change its internal rules during the ongoing lame duck session, there are bills they could use to do so:

A bill currently in the Senate offered by retiring Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), the Earmark Elimination Act, would create a point of order in the Senate’s rules banning earmarks.
A tastily-named House bill known as the Pulled Pork Act sponsored by Rep. Jacky Rosen (D-NV) ― who will serve in the Senate starting next year ― would ban congressional earmarks and require annual reports on attempted earmarks.

— Eric Revell

(Photo Credit: iStock.com / mj0007)

","image_urls":{"large":"https://ul.countable.us/ul/q_auto/uploads/akW3yomg/e43a6b/iStock-994510602.jpg","medium":"https://ul.countable.us/ul/q_auto/uploads/akW3yomg/e43a6b/iStock-994510602.jpg","small":"https://ul.countable.us/ul/q_auto/uploads/akW3yomg/e43a6b/iStock-994510602.jpg","thumb":"https://ul.countable.us/ul/q_auto/uploads/akW3yomg/e43a6b/iStock-994510602.jpg","xsmall":"https://ul.countable.us/ul/q_auto/uploads/akW3yomg/e43a6b/iStock-994510602.jpg"},"links":{"self":"https://www.causes.com/articles/17568-house-democrats-consider-reviving-earmarks-new-congress","article_comments":"https://www.causes.com/api/articles/17568-house-democrats-consider-reviving-earmarks-new-congress/comments"},"comment_count":116,"action_count":985,"cta_prompt":"Should earmarks be brought back?","cta_type":"reactions","share_count":10,"published_at":"2018-12-17T22:18:09.724Z","is_countable_article":true,"allow_advocacy":true,"profile_id":1,"signed":false,"signatures_count":null,"signatures_goal":100,"signable_progress":0,"video_url":null,"video_dimensions":null,"video_aspect_ratio":null}],"users":[{"name":"Brian","vote_count":208,"photos":{"large":"https://graph.facebook.com/1242354985796831/picture?width=150&height=150","small":"https://graph.facebook.com/1242354985796831/picture?width=75&height=75","tiny":"https://graph.facebook.com/1242354985796831/picture?width=20&height=20","facebook":"https://graph.facebook.com/1242354985796831/picture"},"links":{"following":"/api/users/P9oz04vm/following","followers":"/api/users/P9oz04vm/followers"},"about_me":"","twitter_id":null,"facebook_id":null,"youtube_id":null,"google_plus_id":null,"website":null,"slug":null,"issue_count":17,"is_following":null,"influence_score":60,"influence_level":20,"follower_count":2,"following_count":1,"position_count":1,"id":"P9oz04vm","partner_id":null},{"name":"Mark","vote_count":208,"photos":{"large":"https://assets.causes.com/user/avatar/zmJ1aJnZ/large_zmj1ajnz-1535417296.jpg","small":"https://assets.causes.com/user/avatar/zmJ1aJnZ/small_zmj1ajnz-1535417296.jpg","tiny":"https://assets.causes.com/user/avatar/zmJ1aJnZ/tiny_zmj1ajnz-1535417296.jpg"},"links":{"following":"/api/users/zmJ1aJnZ/following","followers":"/api/users/zmJ1aJnZ/followers"},"about_me":"Conservative. Shocked I was once a registered Democrat. I stayed the same but the Democrat party moved so far to the left it lost me. Permanently. My Favorite Quote is from Margaret Thatcher: The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples' money to spend.","twitter_id":null,"facebook_id":null,"youtube_id":null,"google_plus_id":null,"website":null,"slug":null,"issue_count":56,"is_following":null,"influence_score":5020,"influence_level":40,"follower_count":192,"following_count":466,"position_count":195,"id":"zmJ1aJnZ","partner_id":null}],"article_comment":{"flagged":false,"id":633325,"body":"Ear marks are a bad idea.\nIt was great eight years ago when we got rid of them why reinstate them.","parent_type":"Article","parent_id":17568,"created_at":"2018-12-18T13:13:51.319Z","liked":false,"like_count":1,"links":{"self":"https://www.causes.com/comments/633325","likers":"https://www.causes.com/api/v1/likers?likeable_id=633325&likeable_type=Comment"},"article_id":17568,"shareable_image_url":"https://n.causes.com/share-images/comments/633325.png","note":{"text":"Oppose","color":"#ef3e42","stance":"oppose"},"note_text":"Oppose","note_color":"#ef3e42","user_id":"P9oz04vm","liker_ids":["zmJ1aJnZ"]}}

Like Causes?

Comment Liked by 1 User