Earmarks: Most lawmakers vote to preserve one another’s pet projects rather than risk challenges to remove their own.

Excerpts from an article from The New York Times about earmarks (federal money for local projects that helps endear lawmakers to constituents):

Under pressure from Republicans, the Democrat, Representative David R. Obey of Wisconsin, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, said that this year all earmarks and their sponsors would be listed in The Congressional Record a month before they come up for final approval.

Lawmakers and the public can raise questions, sponsors can defend their projects, and the Appropriations Committee will make final decisions.

Mr. Obey warned that he would bar earmarks completely if Republicans attacked individual projects to score political points.

At the beginning of the year, Democrats passed rules intended to make representatives more accountable by requiring for the first time the disclosure of which lawmakers requested each earmark.

Republicans, still smarting from Democratic accusations of earmark abuse under Republican control, hammered the Democrats as not keeping their promise to open up the process.

“It sounds like Mr. Obey has created a complaints department, not an open and deliberative process that guarantees accountability for the American taxpayer,” said Representative John A. Boehner, the Ohio Republican who is minority leader.
_______________

Wouldn't it be great if the Democrats took a major, progressive step forward and said henceforth, no more earmarks. They now soak up more than $64 billion a year on local rather than national projects. And on something this important, rather than being debated in Congress, the final decision on each earmark is made by the handful of leaders of a House and Senate conference. It's crazy.

As noted in 12-23-06 and 1-6-07 posts, earmarks figured prominently in some recent Congressional bribery scandals, and have also become cherished instruments of political power, used by party leaders to reward or punish members and by incumbents to buy good will among their constituents. Some lawmakers treat their share of this money as personal accounts to dole out to constituents or, in many cases, campaign contributors.