[SeMissourian.com] Fair ~ 66°F  
River stage: 26.63 ft. Falling
Sunday, Sep. 21, 2014

Opinion: Earmarks serve a good purpose by ensuring good projects get their funding

Saturday, April 12, 2008

By Jo Ann Emerson

Many Americans have good questions about the congressional earmark process and what is often labeled pork-barrel spending. I start my response to Mike Jensen's recent column by insisting that there is no place for wasteful spending at any level of government -- even if it takes place in southern Missouri. The federal government in particular has a sometimes sordid record on this matter, both from irresponsible earmarking and reckless spending by executive agencies.

But this debate is ultimately over whether responsibility for government spending should rest with directly elected members of Congress or with political appointees and career bureaucrats at the Office of Management and Budget. Constitutionally, the power to spend federal funds resides solely with Congress. The president's budget is never mentioned.

I side with Congress, and I am wary of OMB, an agency insulated from accountability -- to the media, to taxpayers, to rural communities and to Congress. Even more disturbing is the fact that reductions in earmarks seldom (if ever) lead to less deficit spending by the federal government.

Members of Congress, on the other hand, can be good advocates for the districts they represent. If not for our ability to check and balance the executive branch by raising local issues, life would be very different in rural America. In the 8th District, for example, the only way to ensure the roads we need get built is to insert an earmark -- a guarantee the money will be spent for its intended purpose. Four-lane construction of U.S. 60 depends on earmarks for steel and concrete. OMB would never call this project a priority, and without federal funds it never would have happened.

Last year, funding ran short for dredging the river ports that facilitate the flow of manufactured and agricultural goods from our region to the rest of the world. OMB had arbitrarily decided that no ports north of Osceola, Ark., would be dredged. Incomprehensible. Congress was able to get creative, and I was able to ensure our transportation thoroughfares stayed open. OMB often picks winners and losers this way, with no regard for efficiency, need or real-world common sense.

The absence of earmarks exposes OMB at its most arbitrary. In fiscal year 2007 there were no earmarks. OMB directed funding from one vital transportation grant program to only five states. The previous year, when Congress was involved, funding was spread among 47 states.

Yes, the congressional role in government spending demands transparency and accountability. We must reject wasteful spending (the Appropriations Committee already rejects thousands of earmark requests each year). Still, Congress must keep this authority in order to prevent the consolidation of spending authority with another branch of government that is quick to shuffle rural districts like ours to the bottom of their lists.

Jo Ann Emerson of Cape Girardeau represents Missouri's 8th District in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Fact Check
See inaccurate information in this story?

Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please Login or Create an account first, and then you will be able to flag a comment as objectionable. Please also note that those who post comments on semissourian.com may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

Here's an idea: For EVERY SINGLE PENNY spent by the Federal Government, how about specifically citing from the U.S. Constitution where exactly it states that the Federal Government has been given the power to spend THE PEOPLE'S money in that manner? Because the ONLY powers that the Federal Government has are the ones specifically enumerated by the Constitution. All other powers are supposed to be left to the States and to the People. If you don't believe me, see the 10th Amendment and read it for yourself. See how easy it is to cite your source?

Any spending which is not in direct relation to a power of the Federal Government specifically enumerated in the Constitution is wasteful spending.

-- Posted by dixietrucker on Sat, Apr 12, 2008, at 4:15 PM

Same old boilerplate, blah, blah, blah. A classic battle of the bureaucrats over who gets to decide how to spend OUR money.

"We must reject wasteful spending." Very weak, Joann. I say we must reject your brand of politics and forbid wasteful spending. You and your fellow Congressmen have been increasing spending at levels unseen in our history.

Even Jensen is not with you on this one.

-- Posted by grisgris on Sat, Apr 12, 2008, at 7:45 PM

What she really means is that earmarks help the campaign contributions to keep coming in. Democrat or Republican, earmarks are a means of rewarding friends. Earmarks are nothing more than legalized bribery.

-- Posted by BoratObama on Sun, Apr 13, 2008, at 2:55 PM

Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account on seMissourian.com or semoball.com, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.


Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.