Classifieds | Archives | Jobs | About TGT | Contact | Subscribe
Last updated 2 hours, 24 minutes ago
Printer Friendly Version | TGT@Twitter | RSS Feed |
Jason Grumet: Want to fix the debt? Bring back earmarks
March 08, 2018
 Print    Send to Friend

Our national debt stands at $20 trillion. Yet the last several years show that neither party is willing to upset voters by asking them to pay for the programmes, services and tax cuts that benefit us all.

At its core, restoring fiscal balance is not a matter of convincing leaders of the right thing to do. Just about everyone understands the maths. The challenge is giving members the tools to do the right thing.

Many people have ideas about how to help Congress take votes that are essential to the national interest even if they anger constituents. Some believe the answer lies in federal redistricting requirements or campaign finance reform. Others argue for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

A far more realistic and effective approach would be to bring back earmarks — those often-lampooned funds for projects in a lawmaker’s district. Critics accuse earmarks of increasing the deficit. I believe the exact opposite.

Allowing members of Congress to direct resources to priority projects does not increase spending. Agency budgeting is a zero-sum game. The choice is between agencies controlling 100 per cent of the specific funding decisions or 99 per cent. Even in their heyday, earmarks accounted for roughly 1 per cent of total federal outlays.

While I have high regard for the public servants who work in our federal agencies, it’s not clear their spending decisions are more informed, transparent or rigorous than projects identified by accountable local representatives and approved by the entire Congress.

Moreover, it’s hard to argue that banning earmarks led to a new era of fiscal probity. It’s worth noting that the federal debt has increased by more than $5 trillion since the earmark ban took effect seven years ago.

Congress eliminated earmarks in 2011 after some high-profile and highly questionable projects made it through a poorly structured process.

The choice to ban the practice rather than reform it was an overreaction that left some advocates feeling good and some lawmakers appearing fiscally responsible. But it diminished Congress’ ability to solve hard problems.

A unique design in American democracy is that our representatives must govern in the national interest while being judged every two or six years by local interests. Having eliminated opportunities for them to do something popular back home, we shouldn’t be surprised that lawmakers are now less willing to spend political capital for the good of the entire nation.

The give and take that is essential to overcoming entrenched differences is impossible if there is nothing to give or take.

Entitlements aren’t going to cut themselves, and it is hard to imagine a grass-roots movement springing up to raise revenue for needed infrastructure investment. It is nice to call on our leaders to be courageous in the abstract, but we do the nation a disservice if we ignore the things we have done to discourage this behaviour.

To be sure, some earmarking went too far. Through a process described as “midnight dumping,” dozens of projects would be dropped into major pieces of legislation on the eve of passage with little or no scrutiny or debate.

A new approach to earmarks must be fundamentally different. Congress had begun important reforms before the ban was imposed. It must revive those and add safeguards to promote transparency, careful vetting and deliberation.

Tribune News Service

Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites
Post a comment
Advertise | Copyright