A new transparency about “earmarking” money for pet projects has raised the value of the earmarks as a measure of members’ clout.
From The New York Times:
If the idea was to shame lawmakers into restraint, it did not work.
Eight months after Democrats vowed to shine light on the dark art of “earmarking” money for pet projects, many lawmakers say the new visibility has only intensified the competition for projects by letting each member see exactly how many everyone else is receiving.
Far from causing embarrassment, the new transparency has raised the value of earmarks as a measure of members’ clout. Indeed, lawmakers have often competed to have their names attached to individual earmarks and rushed to put out press releases claiming credit for the money they bring home.
“Everybody hates earmarks, but everybody loves earmarks,” said Representative José E. Serrano, a New York Democrat and chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee on financial services.
“What’s happened is that the system is more open to the public, to the press and indeed to other members,” Mr. Serrano said. “Of course, when it becomes open to other members, everybody looks around and says, ‘Oh, I could have gotten that for myself.’ ”
It was not supposed to turn out this way. Last year, Democrats denounced the explosive growth of earmarks as a central part of what they called the “culture of corruption” under the Republican-led Congress. They skewered the infamous $200 million “bridge to nowhere” that Senator Ted Stevens, Republican of Alaska, had tried to finance. Just this week, federal investigators searched Mr. Stevens’s house in Alaska on suspicion that he had received renovation work from a company that he helped with an earmark.
Last year’s outcry against earmarks was fueled in part by scandals surrounding Jack Abramoff, the disgraced former lobbyist. The concerns were heightened by the conviction of Representative Randy Cunningham on charges of taking millions of dollars in cash and gifts in exchange for inserting earmarks for a military contractor.
Ms. Pelosi never called for eliminating earmarks. Instead, she and other Democratic leaders sought to make the process open to more public scrutiny.
If the idea was to shame lawmakers into restraint, it did not work.
Eight months after Democrats vowed to shine light on the dark art of “earmarking” money for pet projects, many lawmakers say the new visibility has only intensified the competition for projects by letting each member see exactly how many everyone else is receiving.
Far from causing embarrassment, the new transparency has raised the value of earmarks as a measure of members’ clout. Indeed, lawmakers have often competed to have their names attached to individual earmarks and rushed to put out press releases claiming credit for the money they bring home.
“Everybody hates earmarks, but everybody loves earmarks,” said Representative José E. Serrano, a New York Democrat and chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee on financial services.
“What’s happened is that the system is more open to the public, to the press and indeed to other members,” Mr. Serrano said. “Of course, when it becomes open to other members, everybody looks around and says, ‘Oh, I could have gotten that for myself.’ ”
It was not supposed to turn out this way. Last year, Democrats denounced the explosive growth of earmarks as a central part of what they called the “culture of corruption” under the Republican-led Congress. They skewered the infamous $200 million “bridge to nowhere” that Senator Ted Stevens, Republican of Alaska, had tried to finance. Just this week, federal investigators searched Mr. Stevens’s house in Alaska on suspicion that he had received renovation work from a company that he helped with an earmark.
Last year’s outcry against earmarks was fueled in part by scandals surrounding Jack Abramoff, the disgraced former lobbyist. The concerns were heightened by the conviction of Representative Randy Cunningham on charges of taking millions of dollars in cash and gifts in exchange for inserting earmarks for a military contractor.
Ms. Pelosi never called for eliminating earmarks. Instead, she and other Democratic leaders sought to make the process open to more public scrutiny.
posted by Sid Cottingham | 8:28 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home