March 25, 2008

In an effort to prove that they are better at managing America’s finances than the GOP, congressional Democrats are falling all over themselves to try to do away with earmarks, the money that gets put into the federal budget by individual members of Congress. But they are listening too closely to Presidential Candidate Arizona Senator John McCain, allowing him to frame the debate as one of special interests vs. fiscal discipline. Senator McCain has made a campaign issue out of this, promising to veto bills that contain earmarks if he becomes President, and calling earmarks a “gateway to corruption.” Democrats ought to slow down and not overreact to his grandstanding. His view is oversimplified, reduces the separation of powers, and would hurt Hawaii.

Here are three reasons to move cautiously when it comes to so-called earmark reform.

1) It’s how the Constitution set up the process.
The executive branch proposes a budget annually, and the legislative branch is supposed to scrutinize and change it. It’s absurd to think that the President’s financial plan is done totally by government experts without political considerations, errors, or oversights, and that legislators do something objectionable by inserting the priorities of their own districts. In fact, control over the purse strings is critical to the balance of power between the three branches of government. Without this, the executive branch could run roughshod over the other two; this was the case in the pre-Nixon era when the President had near total control over the federal budget.

2) It’s not what’s breaking the federal budget.
Earmarks comprise approximately $20 billion annually, which is much less than one percent of the federal budget. That’s no small amount, but considering that the Iraq War costs at least $100 billion dollars per year, and that the total price of the Bush tax cuts is more than $400 billion, it’s clear that the budget impact of limiting earmarks would be minimal.
3) Many vital projects for Hawaii were earmarks.
Here’s how the process ought to work: A real community problem gets conveyed to elected officials, and they do their job by procuring resources to help solve it. Look at what happened with “ice” prevention. Over the past five years, because of Senator Daniel K. Inouye, more than $29 million in Department of Justice funds have been earmarked for Hawaii to combat the effects of crystal methamphetamine, or “ice.” The money was used on all islands for programs to address adolescent rehabilitation and treatment, Drug Court, Ice Task Forces, and prevention. This money, combined with community and other political leadership, has had a positive effect. The ice epidemic appears to be on the wane.

Many other critical initiatives, such as tens of millions of dollars annually for native Hawaiian health, the expansion of Hawaii Volcanoes National Park and Haleakala National Park, the cleanup of the island of Kahoolawe and brown tree snake prevention, have been secured as earmarks by Hawaii’s members of Congress. There is no way that these initiatives would have been funded without the direct political intervention of our congressional delegation.

Senator John McCain takes great pride in never having asked for an earmark in his twenty-four years in Washington DC.

If I were a resident of Arizona, I would wonder what he had been doing that whole time.

•••

Brian Schatz