Reforming the Earmark Process
Reforming the Earmark Process
By U.S. Rep. Joe Wilson
Guest Columnist, The Beaufort Gazette
I recently announced that I would not seek any earmark funding requests in the Fiscal Year 2009 spending bills. This decision was a necessary response to the misuse and abuse inherent in today's earmarking process - a system that values power and position over merit and continues to jeopardize the trust of the American people.
Under current earmark policy, well-deserving projects, those that could positively impact the infrastructure and defense of South Carolina and the United States as a whole, are put at a disadvantage. In order to take a step away from that process and work toward reforming it, a one-year moratorium was the only logical choice to ensure a fresh and unbiased perspective.
On the surface, the cost of earmarks represents 1 percent of the federal budget. This may seem like a drop in the bucket to some people, but it amounts to billions in taxpayer dollars. Americans will not be impressed with a government that promises only to potentially waste a small percentage of their taxpayer dollars. And bickering over the relative costs of earmarks simply obscures Washington's inability to take a tough stance against the larger runaway spending.
Washington has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. Tax revenues have grown to historical levels over the last several years thanks in most part to pro-growth, low tax policies. Getting serious about fiscal responsibility by making sure earmark reform is part of the larger spending debate will ensure members of Congress understand that they can balance the budget by focusing on where we waste taxpayer dollars not on where we can raise taxes on Americans. If lawmakers lack the impetus to address the problem of earmarks, where will Congress find the courage to tackle the truly difficult questions of runaway Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security costs as well as a bloated bureaucracy which truly threatens our fiscal house?
A one-year moratorium was not an easy decision to make. There are many worthy projects in the Second Congressional District and throughout the United States that could benefit from federal funding. Projects to improve our roads and expand our infrastructure and funding for the South Carolina National Guard and local education institutions. There is value in many of these projects. Unfortunately, they are not given reasonable and due consideration under the current earmark process. Meanwhile, projects with dubious benefits are funded, including a $50 million earmark to build a rain forest in Iowa, $1 million for a Woodstock hippie museum, and the infamous $320 million "Bridge to Nowhere" in Alaska.
Without a reform to that system - a single set of standards to which all members of Congress abide by when requesting funding for local projects - the process will remain broken and wasteful. A wasteful system cheats the American people who could benefit from worthy projects, and it damages the integrity of Congress.
Lastly, earmark requests made by individual offices are not, never have been, and never should be a guarantee of funding. A request by a member's office does not assure that the money will be forthcoming, and so it is incorrect to assume that a one-year moratorium is equal to taking money away from local projects. Instead, this decision is based on the acknowledgment that Congress needs to step back and reassess the manner in which it spends taxpayer dollars so those projects will be afforded equal consideration in the future. Only then can American taxpayers be confident that Congress has brought to bear a system of scrutiny, transparency, and accountability to the manner in which it spends their hard-earned money.
Congress must be committed to putting our government's fiscal house back in order. I remain dedicated to rebuilding trust between the American people and its government and that begins by leading the way in reforming where wasteful spending exists.