Pork Barrel Republicans

Pork Barrel Republicans

– By Howard Sierer –

Despite their holier-than-thou claims of spending restraint, Republican congressional representatives are just as ready as Democrats to insert earmarks into appropriations bills. “Bringing home the bacon” – in this case federal funding for projects or services targeted for their home districts – is alive and well in today’s Republican-controlled House of Representatives.

Proponents say earmarks require the executive branch to fund specific projects or programs without adding to a federal department’s overall budget appropriations. For example, a specific bridge or educational subsidy could be specified.

I agree that earmarks don’t add to the overall budget per se, but they make it far too easy for members of both parties to increase the overall budget in the first place.

There are arguments both for and against earmarks. They are opposed by committed fiscal conservatives, including many in Congressional Republican’s Freedom Caucus. Those of us who see the ballooning national debt as a pending disaster sympathize with their concerns.

The White House is another earmark opponent, regardless of the president’s party. Per the administration’s Office of Management and Budget, “earmarks circumvent otherwise applicable merit-based or competitive allocation processes and curtail the ability of the executive branch to manage its statutory and constitutional responsibilities pertaining to the funds allocation process.”

For members of Congress who suspect that the administration’s “merit-based” allocation process will underfund or eliminate their favored projects, earmarks are the answer. This is especially true in today’s highly politicized environment, where Congress often sees political motivation in federal department funding decisions.

Earmarks, which had been business-as-usual since the country was founded, were banned by Congress in 2011 during the rise of the Tea Party when they became associated with bloated, pork barrel spending that, in some cases, went to for-profit corporations tied to wealthy donors.

Over the following ten years, some in Congress complained that without earmarks, building a coalition to support legislation was more difficult. As a result, they claimed that Congress devolved into hyper-partisanship and modest legislative progress during the last four years of Obama’s term. Republican control of both houses of Congress starting in 2015 allowed Republicans to do much as they pleased without earmarks through 2018 but when Democrats won the House in 2019, gridlock returned.

In 2021, Democrats in control of both the White House and Congress immediately ended the House earmark ban and acted like kids in a candy store. Now in the minority, Republicans pontificated publicly against earmarks but in a secret caucus ballot, agreed to follow along, requesting $5.5 billion in earmarks for the 2023 budget.

Then-Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said, “The Democrats want to bring [earmarks] back. There’s a real concern about the administration directing where money goes. This doesn’t add one more dollar. I think members here know what’s most important about what’s going on in their district, not [President] Biden.”

Despite McCarthy’s claim, I believe that earmarks make it easier for Republicans who claim to be fiscal conservatives to support bills loaded with line items they would otherwise oppose. Example: the 2021 $1.2 trillion Infrastructure Act is loaded with earmarked spending. Utah Republican Sen. Mitt Romney, one of 19 Republican senators who voted for the bill, returned to Utah touting a number of specific projects and programs aimed at our state.

When Republicans regained control of the House this year, their appetite increased. Heading into the 2024 federal budget showdown this fall, House Republicans have requested $7.4 billion in earmarks, while Democrats have asked for $2.8 billion. All of the top 60 sponsors are Republicans. They argue, of course, that turnabout is fair play since Democrats led the earmark extravaganza when they controlled the House for the last two years.

Included in this year’s earmark hit parade are two Freedom Caucus Republicans who signed a “no earmarks” pledge two years ago: Andy Harris of Maryland and Ben Cline of Virginia. It’s hard to be a politician and not be a hypocrite.

The earmark totals described above have been reported out of the House Appropriations Committee but might not survive. House Republicans are moving toward deeper 2024 budget cuts to win the votes of their more fiscally-conservative members who object to the committee’s spending $115 billion above the previously-agreed 2022 top line.

I find myself in a quandary. Earmarks clearly facilitate legislative compromise, one of my prescriptions for political progress. On the other hand, they facilitate ever-growing spending when the country is headed for bankruptcy with $2 trillion annual deficits projected for the foreseeable future.

A wise senior manager once told me, “Everybody wants a hot fudge sundae but nobody needs a hot fudge sundae.” Given Democrats’ blowout spending on “hot fudge sundaes” over the last two years, I come down in opposition to earmarks unless they are allowed only when a given year’s budget makes significant progress toward reducing the deficit.

Viewpoints and perspectives expressed throughout The Independent are those of the individual contributors. They do not necessarily reflect those held by the staff of The Independent or our advertising sponsors. Your comments, rebuttals, and contributions are welcome in accordance with our Terms of Service. Please be respectful and abide by our Community Rules. If you have privacy concerns you can view our Privacy Policy here. Thank you! 

Click here to submit an article, guest opinion piece, or a Letter to the Editor