The Republican Study Committee
slams the Democrats over secret earmarks that Democrats plan on
inserting into bills during conference committee.
Ramesh Ponnuru
argues in the current print edition of National Review
that porkbusting is overrated. His most provocative claim is that
transparency could actually be counterproductive:
The porkbusters want the public to be able to find out
which legislator put which spending item in a bill. But most
earmarks are not secret. Politicians brag about them. Citizens
Against Government Waste, one of the oldest anti-pork
organizations, complains on its website that pork "conditions
voters to re-elect incumbents based on their ability to 'bring home
the bacon.'" Exactly. If reformers really wanted to cut down on
earmarks, they would outlaw disclosure: If politicians could not
take credit for bringing federal money to their districts, they
would bring a lot less.
More disclosure, on the other hand, could increase the number of
earmarks. Congressmen send "request letters" to the appropriations
committees seeking funding for their pet projects. From time to
time, it has been suggested that these letters be made public. If
they were, the congressmen would end up going to bat for every
constituent who asked them for help.
If this is the case, then why is there any secret earmarking at
all? The answer, I think, is that congressmen don't actually worry
too much that they won't get credit for pork from their
constituents -- after all, the voters back home in their respective
districts are the ones who see the bacon doled out up closes. What
they do worry about is financial support for their electoral
oppenents from
outside their respective districts.
Transparency serves to correct the balance of information between
pro- and anti-pork interests.
This means, incidentally, that there is an inherrent tension
between campaign finance "reforms" and curbing pork. Someone tell
John McCain.
topics:
John McCain, Earmarks, Law
