Earmarks in the news
You might be hearing a lot about earmarks this weekend, both nationally and locally.
The Oklahoman is among more than 20 news outlets that have been looking into the process by which earmarks are slipped into federal spending bills. The project is sponsored by the Associated Press Managing Editors and two nonprofit government watchdog groups, Taxpayers for Common Sense and the Sunlight Foundation.
The problem is, there’s no single definition of an earmark. Various federal budget agencies define them differently, as do other government watchdog groups such as Citizens Against Government Waste. But generally, an earmark is appropriations money targeted to a specific geographic area, organization or institution. Most of the time, that money isn’t requested by a particular federal agency.
Some lawmakers prefers to call earmarks “congressionally directed spending” and note that the Constitution gives Congress the “power of the purse.” Detractors say earmarks derail federal, state and local spending priorities and only go to the “squeakiest wheels” that can afford to hire lobbyists to make their case to lawmakers.
Most earmarks are for worthy projects such as dams, roads, military housing, medical research and health programs. Others are for private companies, nonprofits or universities. While almost every federal appropriations bill contains earmarks, the big-ticket earmarks end up in reports accompanying the Defense Department or Transportation Department appropriations bills.
Here in Oklahoma, more than $542 million in earmarks were secured for the state last year. Oklahoma’s Congressional delegation–minus earmarks critic Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Muskogee–accounted for just $109 million of that total. President Bush requested the rest–more than $433 million. The average Oklahoma earmark was for $4.14 million.
In all, more than 130 projects across the state received earmarks in fiscal year 2008. You can search for them at our online database at Your Right to Know.
Here’s the breakdown of earmarks secured by each Oklahoma Congressional member. The figures come from an analysis of data provided by Taxpayers for Common Sense:
Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Tulsa
43 solo earmarks, for a total of $61 million; 37 joint earmarks with various House members
Rep. Frank Lucas, R-Cheyenne
18 solo earmarks, for a total of $13.98 million; two joint earmarks for a total of $933,000
Rep. Tom Cole, R-Moore
11 solo earmarks, for a total of $9.26 million; two joint earmarks for a total of $933,000
Rep. John Sullivan, R-Tulsa
11 solo earmarks, for a total of $8.94 million; one joint earmark for $2 million
Rep. Dan Boren, D-Muskogee
9 solo earmarks, for a total of $6.92 million; one joint earmark for $2 million
Rep. Mary Fallin, R-Oklahoma City
10 solo earmarks, for a total of $4.94 million; one joint earmark for $195,000
Generally, senators have much more sway when it comes to requesting earmarks, which most likely accounts for Inhofe’s haul. Committee assignments count, too. Inhofe is one of the top members of the Senate Armed Services committee. Boren, Cole and Sullivan are members of the House Armed Services committee. Lucas is on the House Committee on Agriculture, and serves as chairman of one of its subcommittees.
As several lobbying scandals have erupted in recent years, Congress has worked to enhance disclosure rules on earmarks. Previously, most earmarks were anonymous and buried in committee reports that accompanied appropriations bills or stuck in final House-Senate conference reports. Now, House and Senate members must disclose their earmark requests. Some, like Fallin, put them online. Others, like Boren, tout them in press releases. Cole had his entered into the Congressional Record.
Take a look at the latest earmark requests that made it into the FY 2009 Defense Department authorization bills. The Senate disclosure is here, while the House earmark requests are here. (PDF links)
For more background on the overall earmarking process, you can read a fairly lengthy Harvard University briefing paper. Or take a look at an anonymous document circulating on Capitol Hill touting the benefits of earmarks over spending decisions made by bureaucrats at federal agencies. (PDF links)
–Paul
Written by Paul Monies
Follow @pmonies
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
I’m a very long time watcher and I just assumed I’d drop by and say hello there for your first time. I seriously take pleasure in your posts. Many thanks http://www.blurty.com/talkpost.bml?journal=gyre832&itemid=875
This weblog is excellent. There is often all the correct info at the recommendations of my fingers. Thanks and maintain up the very good work! http://www.blurty.com/talkpost.bml?journal=amarok238&itemid=1220
Hi all I definitely enjoy your piece of writing. If you’d want to converse regarding it,I would seriously like to communicate along with you, my name is Jack. My electronic mail is in this article. Many thanks!
Hm work done as much as im a do for the day I should say. Bout to work on this take home exam n watch football
I have really learned some new things from your blog post. One more thing to I have found is that generally, FSBO sellers may reject people. Remember, they would prefer never to use your providers. But if you maintain a reliable, professional connection, offering support and remaining in contact for about four to five weeks, you will usually have the capacity to win a discussion. From there, a house listing follows. Thanks a lot
Its pretty shocking when you think about it!