Sali and Earmarks Explained

Kevin Richert charges Rep. Bill Sali with a confusing stance on earmarks and government spending:

Last week, Sali issued a press release to trumpet a pair of budget earmarks in a federal spending bill: $500,000 for a widening project on U.S. 95 and $500,000 for highway work from Banks to Lowman. In a textbook case of burying the news, the press release’s last paragraph contains some oh-by-the-way fine print: “Sali voted against the overall measure because it contains a series of other unnecessary, bloated spending proposals and would hike overall spending by $7.1 billion more than current funding and $5.3 billion more than the President has requested…”

So spokesman Wayne Hoffman draws the thankless job of explaining Sali’s vote. Members of Congress should advocate for earmarks in their state or congressional district, but they ultimately should vote on bills based on their merits. “We’ve got to put principle over politics,” said Hoffman, who asserts that it takes “an awful lot of courage” to vote against a spending bill containing local projects.

Courageous? I suspect Sali’s critics would suggest a different adjective.

Actually, Kevin, it’d be courageous of you to go ahead and use that adjective as you’re clearly a Sali critic. However, I digress.

Is Sali hypocritical on federal spending? First, we need to understand the nature of an earmark. An earmark itself doesn’t directly increase federal spending. It directs it. So, it instructs the Department of Transportation to use highway funds for Highway 95. If all members of Congress kept their requests at $1 million, this wouldn’t be a problem.

However, there are two problems we run into. First, is that a lot of folks put in earmarks for things that are clearly not in the national interest. Maintaining federal highways are, setting up visitor centers hither and yon are not. In some cases, the earmarks add up to Billions of Dollars, limiting the Department’s ability to make good judgments on what needs to be done through the competitive bid process.

The second problem is that the earmarks lead to increased spending, and it’s not just to cover the earmarks. This year’s Transportation Budget include $2.2 billion in Earmarks, but is $5.3 billion over the President’s request. Appropriators increase general spending levels to generally grow the size of government.

Then they use the earmarks members have received as leverage. Congressman John Campbell (R-CA) posted a speech by Appropriations Commitee Chairman David Obey (D-WI.) on his blog a few weeks back that illustrated this point:

Mr. OBEY. I know there are some people in this Chamber who believe that if this bill goes down, if the President vetoes it, that somehow a way will be found to compromise and still protect these earmarks.

I want to make it clear, I have been told many times by the White House that they have no intention whatsoever of compromising on this or any other bill that exceeds the President’s wishes. If that is the case and if this bill goes down, then the only alternative left to us will be to bring in a bill at the President’s level of funding.

I would ask every serious-minded person in this body, if they really think there is a chance of a snowball in Hades that Members’ earmarks on either side of the aisle will survive if we wind up at the President’s level of funding, I think you understand that is not likely. And so I think the fate of all of the work that has gone into this bill, the fate of every project that Members have been concerned about is in your hands.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Thus, it is hoped that Congressmen, like Bill Sali, who may have $1 million in earmarks in a bill will vote for it despite the fact it will run up billions in unnecessary deficit spending. Sali makes the right and hard choice time and time again to vote for the best interests of the whole country and Idaho’s children, who will be left to shoulder this.

This is not something that’s easy, particularly if the earmarks die. But, what’s led to high deficits is that faced with similar situations, members of Congress have always chosen their parochial interests over the country’s.

Now, some might ask if it would be better for Sali to simply forswear earmarks altogether. There are 17 Republicans who have. Sali has not, for understandable reasons. If, for example on highway bills, Congressman Sali doesn’t request funds for necessary improvements on Idaho highways, the chance of the highways in his district getting the necessary funding through a needs based competitive process are much slimmer thanks to members of Congress who’ve gotten earmarks to get their road improvements guaranteed This would amount to unilateral disarmament.

As long as Sali keeps his earmark requests reasonable, opposes wasteful earmarks, votes against bloated appropriations bills rather than support them to save his earmarks, then I think he’s doing the best he can given the circumstances presented him.