Earmarks have become a dirty word in Washington. They’re the pots of federal money that members of Congress direct to projects in their district, often transportation and defense work. The process is currently frowned upon by so many, that Republicans are leading a charge to do away with the practice. WUWM’s LaToya Dennis learned that Wisconsin is low on the list when it comes to receiving earmarks, and there’s disagreement over whether they’re problematic. The federal government is facing a budget deficit of around $1.3 trillion dollars. To help reign in government spending, Republicans, including Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan, have proposed doing away with pork barrel spending, also known as earmarks. They’ve totaled $16 billion this year. During a recent interview on MSBC, Ryan said that while earmarks make up only a small portion of the overall budget, the GOP understands they’re symptomatic of excessive government spending.
“These guys are serious about it so they get the deal, they get the message. As Tom Coburn said the earmarks are the gateway drug to big spending, and we’ve got to deal with this deal. If we can’t take on the real deficit problems without doing earmarks, I mean come on,” Ryan says.
Ryan says as long as the practice remains, the public cannot have faith that the government is adequately tackling the country’s enormous national debt. Across the political aisle, Wisconsin Democratic Congresswoman Gwen Moore calls earmarks, a useful tool. In fact, she says she’s rather proud of some she’s engineered for her constituents.
“Monies for community health centers, monies to create jobs, and not just to create jobs, but to advance the next level of technology in energy solutions, to clean up brown field areas,” Moore says
. …And the creation of a spinal cord injury unit at the Milwaukee VA Medical Center. Since being elected to office back in 2005, Moore has sent more than $126 million in earmarks to her district. She says the Constitution gives Congress the right to appropriate funds, and earmarks are nothing more.
“It’s curious to me why members of Congress in either party would be interested in ceding their constitutional power to make appropriations from the treasury. Were they not to do earmarks to direct spending, all of that power would be ceded to the executive branch. We would indeed have an imperial presidency. We may as well call the president king,” Moore says.
There’s a good reason some lawmakers oppose ending earmarks, according Christopher Murray. He’s with Marquette University’s Les Aspen Center for Government based in Washington D.C.
“Members of Congress primarily look out for their constituencies first, that’s always their number one goal. And if you can bring projects back to your district you can make a very tangible argument that you are working on their behalf, and that you are looking out for their best interest. And so if you end earmarks you essentially take away an argument for member to make about how good of a job they’re doing,” Murray says.
Murray says this isn’t the first time people in Washington have tried to end to earmarks, but he says when new lawmakers are sworn in come January, those pushing to end the practice will likely get their way. Yet he agrees with Congressman Ryan, the elimination would largely be symbolic.
“I think what you will probably see is that they will take a vote to end the earmarks but they will still try to find ways in legislative language to stipulate how money can be spent. Congress can be pretty creative in this way,” Murray says.
According to the website Citizens Against Government Waste, Wisconsin ranks 30 when it comes to the amount of earmark dollars per capita. This year, the state’s representatives Washington brought back nearly $153 million.