A Spit-Roast for Democracy

In the midst of an unprecedented financial crisis, it may seem oddly comforting to find Congress behaving according to their breed. Inside the beltway, a natural habitat for ambitious politicians, the traditional feast upon yet another appropriations bill goes off (almost) without a hitch.

Certainly there have been many calls for a kosher budget, including both President Barack Obama and his opponent last year, Arizona Sen. John McCain, who denounced the Congressional habit of bringing home the bacon for those they represent. And of course, there is no shortage of shining examples of wasted federal tax dollars, including the infamous Alaskan bridge to nowhere.

It’s admittedly difficult for the nation to accept the business-as-usual attitude, particularly after hearing calls for reform throughout the campaign. While it’s easy to condemn the Congressional cronies from high atop the campaign platform, hacking off a mere 1 to 3 percent of a $410 billion spending bill seems hardly worth a presidential veto. As often is the case in legislative politics, it’s what’s in the margins that counts. Like democratic representation.

And perhaps that’s what makes this legislative force so resilient. Those Congressmen (and women) who wish to keep their seats often use earmarks to cut a deal with the most dreaded of political interlopers: their own constituents. The citizens, in turn, elect the alpha-politicians, those who reliably bring back the meat. In a legislative process littered with subcommittees, continuing and non-binding resolutions, there is something delightfully primitive about a representative-- well, representing their people.

Among the over 9,000 earmarks wedged into the latest appropriations bill, however, the most frivolous, wasteful, and outright ridiculous have already found their way into public scrutiny. And rightfully so. If anything, the responsibility of the federal government is to ensure the purity of legislative earmarks, through the public disclosure of each dollar spent in the margins.

There are, in fact, rarely enforced regulations which serve to weed out the most needless of these appropriations, including a 20-day review of earmarks by their respective federal agencies. These measures have fallen short for a number of reasons, primarily the considerable number of proposals. As in its nature, the federal government seems to have overlooked the most efficient method to filter out unpopular allocations, that is, the populace.

By imposing a requirement to release full details of each earmark proposal, including a budget and proof of merit for each project, a well-informed constituency would, once again, ensure that all is at peace in the political jungle. Those with concerns regarding the $190,000 sent to New Orleans (for a community center project which has already been abandoned) can wield their vote over their regional representative. As for Louisiana Democrat Mary L. Landrieu, she’ll have not only her fellow Senators, but also her community to answer to.

Rather than dismissing Congressional earmarks as a crude version of democratic leadership, politicians, as well as the public, should take an interest in what is, at worst, a necessary evil. By bringing them to the forefront of political discourse, the only standard these appropriations would have to meet is their ability to gain Congressional support. As long as Congressmen have a taste for power and the public a taste for the other white meat, pork will continue to serve an integral part in the legislative process. Let’s simply do our best to trim the fat.

Enough Noise. Check out earmarks in the New York Times.

Measuring Up

As the pendulum of partisan politics swings into the liberal spectrum, many policies which have carved indelible effects into the lives of American citizens are now up for review. In various aspects of public policy, President Barack Obama’s call for change is warmly welcomed, particularly in reshaping a floundering economy and housing crises.

As Obama’s actions alter the landscape, taken by some as a call to disband the relics of a conservative state, the bipartisan education initiative proposed by George W. Bush, the No Child Left Behind Act, provides a potential cautionary tale for congress: don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater.

In an unprecedented step to involve federal government in public education, No Child Left Behind created national standards of measurement, implemented through standardized tests devised by the states, to promote improvement through the dangled carrot of federal funding. The mandate included a punitive measure, rescinding Title I funds to schools who failed to demonstrate an increase in scores testing basic subjects such as math, reading, and applied science, and providing options for parents to remove their children from sinking schools.

The principle is apolitical, a claim which the Bush administration sought to illustrate by receiving bipartisan support from Democratic bigwigs like Ted Kennedy. Not only does the nation as a whole have a vested interest in increasing the academic success of its next generation, the public school system must be held accountable, at the national level, for the successes and failures within its control.

Though federal funding comprises roughly 10 percent of most public school budgets, its role as the national yardstick is no less crucial. Since the implementation of the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education act, the federal government has held a strictly defined, though rarely exercised, role in public schooling: compensation for existing disparities, equalization of imbalances in funding (collected through property taxes), and providing oversight for a responsible education system. If anything, No Child Left Behind holds both the state and the schools accountable for their respective roles in educating the populace.

As leadership on this critical initiative changes hands, however, the limitations of No Child Left Behind must be acknowledged, in order to guide the future administration in its adaptation of the fledgling program. NCLB reflects a proactive approach to providing equal education opportunities for all its children, marked by its recognition of the federal government’s constitutionally limited power. By setting a benchmark and allowing states to evaluate its performance, with particular attention to their own racial and ethnic minorities facing the consequences of disparate education, the standards and priorities should continue to be outlined by state and local leadership.

Unfortunately, both spheres of power are confined by factors they have yet to address through legislation. By limiting the scope of education reform in placing the burden of responsibility on schools and teachers, NCLB puts blinders on the comprehensive view of education.

Closing achievement gaps between wealthy and poor school systems requires a great deal more than setting an academic minimum. Rather, both state and federal administration must focus on the elements of success that, while abundant in middle-class American families, are rarely found in low-income areas.

Environmental issues such as lack of prenatal care and child nutrition are known to impede development. Parents employed full-time often rely on television for child-care, to say nothing of a lack of involvement in the PTA. The values of the community, particularly peers, often devalue the education process, while No Child Left Behind offers no incentive for children to achieve.

While a nation anxious for stability clamors for rapid change, a clean-slate approach to education may appeal to those hoping to wipe away eight years of unsettling government action. Yet the principles behind the No Child Left Behind Act have woven through decades of government policy. The Obama administration, as well as congress, must continue to pledge its devotion to providing an equal opportunity for its children, using innovative methods to ensure public schools play their vital role. By providing a standard of achievement, coupled with intensive examination of the roadblocks created within the environment, No Child Left Behind can broaden the view of education for a future of innovative reform.

Enough noise. Check out NCLB.