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.