Earmark (politics)

In the United States and South African public finance, an earmark is a provision inserted into a discretionary spending appropriations bill that directs funds to a specific recipient while circumventing the merit-based or competitive funds allocation process. Unlike the spoils system, earmarks do not increase public spending; they merely shift funds from one recipient to another.

"Earmark" comes from the livestock term, where the ears of domestic animals were cut in specific ways so that farmers could distinguish their stock from others grazing on public land. In particular, the term comes from earmarked hogs where, by analogy, pork-barreled legislation would be doled out among members of the local political machine.[1]

United States

In the United States, the term earmark is used in relation with the congressional allocation process. [2]:36 [3] [4] Discretionary spending, which is set by the House and Senate Appropriations Committees and their various subcommittees, usually through appropriation acts, is an optional part of fiscal policy which differs from mandatory spending for entitlement programs in the federal budget. [5]

Definitions

In 2006 the Congressional Research Service (CRS) compiled a report on the use of earmarks in thirteen Appropriation Acts from 1994 through 2005 in which they noted that there was "not a single definition of the term earmark accepted by all practitioners and observers of the appropriations process, nor [was] there a standard earmark practice across all appropriation bills."[6]:2 It was noted at that time, that while the CRS did not summarize earmarks that they came in two varieties: hard earmarks, or "hardmarks", found in legislation, and soft earmarks, or "softmarks", found in the text of congressional committee reports. Hard earmarks are legally binding, whereas soft earmarks are not but are customarily acted upon as if they were.[7][6] The CRS did not aggregate the "varying definitions" as the result would be invalid.[6]:3[8]:4

By 2006, the definition most widely used, developed by the Congressional Research Service, the public policy research arm of the U.S. Congress was,[9]

"Provisions associated with legislation (appropriations or general legislation) that specify certain congressional spending priorities or in revenue bills that apply to a very limited number of individuals or entities. Earmarks may appear in either the legislative text or report language (committee reports accompanying reported bills and joint explanatory statement accompanying a conference report)."

— Sandy Streeter, Government and Finance Division, March 6, 2006 CRS

According to the federal Office of Management and Budget the term earmark referred to,[10]

"funds provided by the Congress for projects, programs, or grants where the purported congressional direction (whether in statutory text, report language, or other communication) circumvents otherwise applicable merit-based or competitive allocation processes, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the executive branch to manage its statutory and constitutional responsibilities pertaining to the funds allocation process. Earmarks are funds provided by Congress for projects or programs that curtail the ability of the Executive Branch to manage critical aspects of the funds allocation process."

— Office of Management and Budget. Last updated 2011

In 2015, for the purpose of clause 9(e) of rule XXI restricting certain bills in the Rules of the House of Representatives for the 114th Congress, Congressional earmarks were defined as,[2]:36

"a provision or report language included primarily at the request of a Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, or Senator providing, authorizing or recommending a specific amount of discretionary budget authority, credit authority, or other spending authority for a contract, loan, loan guarantee, grant, loan authority, or other expenditure with or to an entity, or targeted to a specific State, locality or Congressional district, other than through a statutory or administrative formula-driven or competitive award process."

— Clerk of the House of Representatives January 15, 2015

The House Rules impose disclosure requirements for earmarks, while a standing rule of the Republican Conference has, since the 114th Congress, imposed an "earmark moratorium".[8]:1

Typically, a legislator seeks to insert earmarks that direct a specified amount of money to a particular organization or project in their home state or district.

Appropriation committees

The two most powerful Congressional committees, the Senate Committee on Appropriations and the House Committee on Appropriations, pass bills that regulate expenditures the United States federal government.[11] [12] Chairs and Members of these committees are seen as influential. The Senate Appropriations Committee is the largest committee in the U.S. Senate, with 30 members in the 114th Congress and is, therefore one of the most powerful committees in the Senate.[13][14] In 2006 the two committees controlled $843 billion a year in discretionary spending in 2006 and earmarked tens of billions of dollars that year.[11]

President Obama proposed freezing discretionary spending representing approximately 12% of the budget in his 2011 State of the Union address.[15]

Value

Based on the 2006 CRS report the comparative total value of earmarks from 1994 to 2005 was,[16]:18

($billion)
yearCAGWCRS
1994$7.8$23.2
1996$12.5$19.5
1998$13.2$27.7
2000$17.732.9
2002$20.142.0
2004$22.9$45.0
2005$27.3$47.4

Earmarks as a % of total federal outlay.[16]:19

yearCAGWCRS
19940.004%1.59%
19960.80%1.25%
19980.80%1.67%
20000.99%1.84%
20021.00%2.09%
20041.00%1.96%
20051.10%1.92%

Legislation

The Congress is required by Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7 of the United States Constitution to pass legislation prior to the expenditure of any U.S. Treasury funds.[17]

The earmarking process provided Congress with the power to earmark discretionary funds it appropriates to be spent on specific named projects. The earmarking process was a regular part of the process of allocating funds within the Federal government. For many years they were a core aspect of legislative policymaking and distributive politics - an essential political instrument whereby political coalitions were forged through compromise in order to pass or reject key legislation. As congressional earmarks came into disfavor and eventually were prohibited, the ban "contributed to legislative gridlock and increased the difficulty of winning enactment of tax and immigration reform."[18][19][20]

Earmarking differs from the broader appropriations process in which Congress grants a yearly lump sum of money to a federal agency. These monies are allocated by the agency according to its legal authority and internal budgeting process. With an earmark, Congress directs a specified amount of money from an agency's budget to be spent on a particular project. In the past members of Congress did not have to identify themselves or the project.

The process of earmarking was substantially reformed since the 110th United States Congress between January 3, 2007, and January 3, 2009. Since 2009, members of Congress had to post all their earmark requests online along with a signed letter certifying that they and their immediate families had no direct financial interest in the earmark.[21]

In March 2010, the House Appropriations Committee implemented rules to ban earmarks to for-profit corporations. According to The New York Times, approximately 1,000 such earmarks were authorized in the previous year, worth $1.7 billion.[22]

In November 2010, the GOP promised to ban earmarks.[23] House Speaker John Boehner declared that earmarks were "the pet projects prized by lawmakers that had become synonymous with pork-barrel spending and corruption."[24][25]

President Obama promised during his State of the Union address in January 2011 to veto any bill that contained earmarks. In February 2011, Congress "imposed a temporary ban on earmarks, money for projects that individual lawmakers slip into major Congressional budget bills to cater to local demands."[19]

The 2011 ban has not been lifted.[26][27]

Finally, earmarks constituted less than 1% of the 2010 federal budget, down from about 1.1% in 2006.[28]

In December 2015, Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW), claimed in their 2016 Congressional Pig Book,[29] that all the FY2016 earmarks were contained in the December 2016 omnibus 2000-page Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 which authorized $1.15 trillion in appropriations.[30] The CAGW argued that "Throwing all earmarks into one large bill makes it more difficult to identify and eliminate earmarks than if Congress adhered to regular order and considered the 12 appropriations bills individually."

Paul Ryan announced that the Republican party is considering calling for an end to the ban earmarks. Supporters of ending the ban are now calling earmarks "congressionally directed spending."[24]

Alternatives to congressional earmarks

Members of Congress can influence priorities and policy-making that promote projects that are important to their constituents by accessing discretionary DOT spending, through regular formula-based funding mechanisms and increased interaction with both transportation official as the federal and state levels.[7]:9

Earmarks and transportation

In January 2017, a report by the CRS described how, prior to the earmarks ban in 2011, Members of Congress had used earmarks to ensure that local congressional representatives, not the Department of Transportation and its Agencies Administration, set priority discretionary transportation spending.[7]:9

Congressional members and DOT administration often disagree on priorities. In FY2007, with an earmark ban in place, President Bush's Administration's divided about $850 million, which represented almost all of the DOT's discretionary annual funding, to traffic congestion mitigation strategies in only five metro areas, Miami, Florida, Minneapolis, Minnesota, San Francisco, California, and Seattle, Washington through the Urban Partnership Agreement.[7]:9[31]:3,4

Debates

Earmarks have often been treated as being synonymous with "pork barrel" legislation.[32] Despite considerable overlap,[33] the two are not the same: what constitutes an earmark is an objective determination, while what is "pork-barrel" spending is subjective.[34] One legislator's "pork" is another's vital project.[35][36]

Scott Frisch and Sean Kelly point out that directing money to particular purposes is a core constitutional function of Congress. If Congress does not make a specific allocation, the task falls to the executive branch. There is no guarantee that the allocation made by executive agencies will be superior to that of Congress. Presidents and executive officials can use the allocation of spending to reward friends and punish enemies. [37]

There are also those who opine that "earmarks are good" because they are more democratic and less bureaucratic than traditional appropriation spending, which generally is not tailored to specific projects.[38]

The Gravina Island Bridge, popularly known as the "Bridge to Nowhere", has become shorthand for frivolous earmarks.[39]

South Africa

In 2010, National Treasury Republic of South Africa explored earmarking,[40] along with recycling and tax shifting, as ways of using carbon tax revenues. While the Treasury did "not support full earmarking of revenues generated from environmental taxes" they were considering "partial 'on-budget' earmarking of some revenue. At that time concerns were raised that special interest groups could constrain government and control public resources through earmarking.[40]:8

See also

References

  1. ↑ Sahadi, Jeanne (March 11, 2009). "Earmarks: Myth and reality". money.cnn.com. CNN. Retrieved April 20, 2018. The term earmark originated in ancient England when farmers tagged -- or marked the ears -- of their livestock mixed among the village herd.
  2. 1 2 Karen L. Haas, ed. (January 6, 2015), "Rules of the House of Representatives" (PDF), Clerk of the House of Representatives, pp. 45 or 75, retrieved January 4, 2017
  3. ↑ "Guidance to Agencies on Definition of Earmarks", Office of Management and Budget Executive Office of the President of the United States, November 12, 2010, retrieved January 4, 2017
  4. ↑ "Budget Concepts". FY 2013 Budget of the United States Government (PDF). Analytical Perspectives. p. 137.
  5. ↑ Mandal, U.C. (2007). Dictionary Of Public Administration. Sarup & Sons. p. 140. ISBN 978-81-7625-784-8.
  6. 1 2 3 "Earmarks in Appropriation Acts: FY1994, FY1996, FY1998, FY2000, FY2002, FY2004, FY2005" (PDF), Congressional Research Service (CRS), p. 49, January 26, 2006, retrieved January 4, 2017
  7. 1 2 3 4 Robert S. Kirk, William J. Mallett, and David Randall Peterman (January 4, 2017), "Transportation Spending Under an Earmark Ban" (PDF), Congressional Research Service, retrieved January 7, 2017
  8. 1 2 Megan S. Lynch (May 21, 2015), "Earmark Disclosure Rules in the House: Member and Committee Requirements" (PDF), Congressional Research Service (CRS), p. 7, retrieved January 4, 2017 Analyst on Congress and the Legislative Process
  9. ↑ Sandy Streeter (March 6, 2006), Comparison of Selected Senate Earmark Reform Proposals (RL33295), Congressional Research Service Government and Finance Division
  10. ↑ "Earmarks Database", Office of Management and Budget Executive Office of the President of the United States, 2010, retrieved January 4, 2017 last updated 2011
  11. 1 2 Timothy J. Burger (February 16, 2006), The Lobbying Game: Why the Revolving Door Won't Close, Washington, DC, retrieved January 7, 2017
  12. ↑ Tollestrup, Jessica. "The Congressional Appropriations Process: An Introduction". Senate.gov. Retrieved 23 November 2014.
  13. ↑ "Overview of the Committee's role". U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations. Archived from the original on October 13, 2005. Retrieved October 14, 2005.
  14. ↑ "Creation of the Senate Committee on Appropriations". U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations. Archived from the original on September 27, 2005. Retrieved October 14, 2005.
  15. ↑ State of the Union Speech-January 2011
  16. 1 2 Rob Porter and Sam Walsh (April 1, 2006), Earmarks in the Federal Budget Process (PDF), Harvard Law School Federal Budget Policy Seminar (16), p. 45, retrieved January 5, 2017
  17. ↑ Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7
  18. ↑ https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/opinion/thomas-edsall-the-value-of-political-corruption.html The Value of Political Corruption Thomas B. Edsall August 5, 2014
  19. 1 2 Raymond Hernandez (February 4, 2011). "District Liked Its Earmarks, Then Elected Someone Who Didn't". The New York Times. Retrieved January 5, 2017.
  20. ↑ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/06/earmark-reform_n_5656138.html Let’s Do It! Let’s Bring Back Earmarks! 08/06/2014 Jason Linkins Huffington Post
  21. ↑ Pelosi, Hoyer and Obey Announce Further Earmark Reforms (PDF), Washington, DC, March 11, 2009, Archived from the original on March 25, 2009
  22. ↑ Eric Lichtblau, "New Earmark Rules Have Lobbyists Scrambling", The New York Times, March 11, 2010.
  23. ↑ Naftali Bendavid (November 16, 2010), "Tea Party Wins GOP Vow to Ban Earmarks", Wall Street Journal, Washington, DC, retrieved January 5, 2017
  24. 1 2 Russell Berman (November 25, 2016), Republicans Get Ready to Welcome Back Earmarks: GOP lawmakers want to wrest back the power of the purse, but the pull of pork is colliding with Donald Trump’s call to "drain the swamp", The Atlantic, retrieved January 5, 2017
  25. ↑ Earmarks Are A Model, Not A Menace – Sunday, November 7, 2010 Archived April 17, 2009, at the Wayback Machine.. NationalJournal.com. Retrieved on November 16, 2010.
  26. ↑ Burgess Everett (May 7, 2014), "Earmarks divide Republicans", Politico
  27. ↑ Dinan, Stephen, "", "The Washington Times", November 16, 2013
  28. ↑ House bans some earmarks amid ethics concerns
  29. ↑ 2016 Congressional Pig Book
  30. ↑ Pat Toomey (21 Dec 2015). "Area Votes in Congress". philly.com. Retrieved 30 Dec 2015.
  31. ↑ “DOT Urban Partnership Awards a Far Cry from Usual Earmarking,” Transportation Weekly, vol. 8, no. 32 September 5, 2007
  32. ↑ E.g., Diana Marrero, "Alaska 1st, Ariz. last in pork spending", USA Today, March 22, 2008 ("pork-barrel spending, otherwise known as earmarks"). Retrieved November 4, 2009.
  33. ↑ E.g, Ronald D. Utt, "How Congressional Earmarks and Pork-Barrel Spending Undermine State and Local Decisionmaking"; The Heritage Foundation, April 2, 1999 ("'pork' . . . often manifests itself as a specific line item, or 'earmark.'"). Retrieved November 4, 2009.
  34. ↑ For one view, see Citizens Against Government Waste, 2006 Pig Book Summary Archived July 14, 2008, at the Wayback Machine.. Retrieved November 4, 2009.
  35. ↑ Judy Sarasohn, "Putting the Pork in One Barrel", The Washington Post, August 17, 2006.
  36. ↑ Weiner, Tim (July 13, 1994), "Sending Money to Home District: Earmarking and Congressional Pork Barrel", The New York Times, Washington, DC, retrieved January 4, 2017 In this article about park barrels, Weiner alleged that Paul E. Kanjorski inserted 2 paragraphs "into an obscure section of the Pentagon" in 1991 earmarking millions of the Defense Department's budget for Earth Conservancy, managed by his family members in Hanover Township, Pennsylvania.
  37. ↑ Scott A. Frisch and Sean Q Kelly (2010), Cheese Factories on the Moon: Why Earmarks are Good for American Democracy, Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers, ISBN 978-1-59451-731-0
  38. ↑ Herdt, Timm (August 10, 2010). "Contrarian view: Earmarks are good". Ventura County Star. Retrieved November 11, 2011.
  39. ↑ The Politics of the 'Bridge to Nowhere' Archived September 10, 2008, at the Wayback Machine.. Newsweek (September 8, 2008). Retrieved November 16, 2010.
  40. 1 2 "Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The Carbon Tax Option" (PDF), National Treasury Republic of South Africa, p. 75, December 2010, retrieved January 4, 2017
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.