Earmark requests should be made transparent

last updated: June 08, 2008 02:56:14 AM

Today's Page 1 report by The Associated Press spotlights earmarks -- the billions in federal funds that elected representatives haul home to their districts, often to win votes or please contributors. It's easy to get cynical about earmarks, the modern term for "pork." All it takes is a few outrageous examples, such as the millions sought for a Chicago aquarium or the infamous "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska.

But look at the chart at the right. Most of the money our three congressmen requested and obtained through the 2008 federal spending bills goes toward major water and road projects and to bolster law enforcement. Those are important needs. And the federal money is often supplementing local and state dollars, not paying outright for anything.

As we've said before, the biggest problems with earmarks are the huge number and the fact that too many slip through with insufficient public scrutiny. There's never enough money to satisfy all the needs and wishes of constituents. That's why the budget process must include an open debate on our spending priorities. In such a debate, worthwhile projects will be defensible.

Earmarks grew significantly while Republicans controlled Congress, contributing to the ballooning federal budget. That irritates many longtime conservatives, including some of our letter writers, who remember the GOP as the party of restraint and limited government. Now that the Democrats are in control, they're accused of having too many earmarks. That kind of bickering has become so commonplace in Washington, D.C., it's easy to dismiss the fact that there have been a few improvements in the process.

As of 2007, the House required that any bill containing earmarks be accompanied by a list identifying each one and the member or members who requested it. The representative requesting an earmark also must provide a letter identifying the earmark and the entity to receive the funds, along with a certification that neither the requesting member nor their spouse would benefit financially.

The Senate didn't go far enough in its reforms. It only requires disclosure of earmarks and their sponsors, but not of the entities receiving them. The recipient names sometimes are obvious when the dollars are going to other government agencies, such as cities and water agencies, but they should be fully disclosed when the taxpayer money is going to private corporations, most often defense contractors.

Meanwhile, our congressmen have advised county and city representatives not to go to the Capitol with unrealistic wish lists. For the past couple of years, local leaders have narrowed their requests to a few of the most critical needs.

A few senators and congressmen have gone cold turkey, shunning any earmarks. We're not going to argue that our representatives should do that. There are legitimate needs in our region and we don't get back anywhere near what we send to Washington.

But all congressmen should do what Rep. Jerry McNerney, D-Pleasanton, has done -- make public all requests, not just their successes. (McNerney's list was released in April; it's available at http://mcnerney.house. gov/FY2009_Earmark_Requests.pdf, or with this story online.)

Virtually every aspect of government functions better in the bright light of day. Sunshine will help improve the earmark process, too.

If you want to do more research on earmarks, useful links are available at http://tinyurl.com/6b4xjs.

• Comments
• Add Comment
• Disclaimer