Eliminate Waste or Kill Good Projects? Earmark Ban Could Cut Both Ways

As the election news sunk in yesterday, President Obama sought common ground with the incoming Republican leadership. His olive branch: earmarks.

The new Republican majority could try to ban earmarks - including ones for bikes and transit. Photo: POLITICO
The new Republican majority could try to ban earmarks - including ones for bikes and transit. Photo: ##http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42059.html##POLITICO##

In a nod to the likely new House Majority Leader, Eric Cantor (R-VA), Obama singled out an earmark ban as an area of agreement for the two parties. Cantor has called earmarks “the poster child for Washington’s wasteful spending binges.”

Just about everyone agrees that earmark reform is needed to stop funding projects like the original bridge to nowhere — the $398 million bridge to connect 50 Alaska residents to the airport. Or Florida’s notorious $10 million road to nowhere, which ends at a chain link fence. Or the million dollars New York Senator Chuck Schumer secured to study widening Route 17 in rural Sullivan County.

Rep. Jim Oberstar, as head of the Transportation Committee, worked hard to make the earmark process transparent. He posted a spreadsheet of member requests on the committee website [PDF] and defined eligibility requirements [PDF].

While there are wasteful earmarks that go to projects without merit, an outright ban makes some transportation advocates nervous. “A portion of our program has been earmarked,” says Homer Carlisle, a legislative affairs specialist at the American Public Transportation Association. “It’s just one of many sources of funding.” If there’s a real need for a project, Carlisle says, the earmark process has been a way for lawmakers to get necessary federal support for local priorities.

Many lawmakers speak with pride about the funding they secure through earmarks for projects in their districts. Rep. Hal Rogers (R-KY) told POLITICO that “there is obviously a need for a member to be able to come on out to the Congress for a particular need in his or her district that the regular order is not solving.”

Bike Portland notes that Rob Sadowsky, Board Member of the League of American Bicyclists and the Alliance for Biking and Walking, is concerned about the earmark ban too.

“While earmark funding on [the] surface appears to be a poor way of managing a democracy,” Sadowsky said, “our projects, particularly trail projects have historically done very well through earmarks.”

He went on to say that if we really want to usher in a new system where projects are evaluated based on merit, “we need a reform of the transportation bill, and with a split congress it will be difficult to get reform inside that bill… We may not do as well in project funding in the future.”

Ken Orski, who writes the transportation-focused newsletter Innovation Briefs, has concluded that a total elimination of congressional earmarks is politically unrealistic. But many lawmakers, like Rep. Cantor, have already stopped using them. Incoming Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) has never used them.

And President Obama said last month that Washington needs to reform the “patchwork approach of funding and maintaining our infrastructure.” He may view an earmark ban as a chance to direct transportation funding where it is most needed. “We’ve got to focus less on wasteful earmarks, outdated formulas,” he said. “We’ve got to focus more on competition and innovation.”

Indeed, top DOT officials have already been trying to make transportation funding more strategic and less scattershot. The TIGER program is a step in that direction, but the funding pot is a small fraction of what the feds disburse to state DOTs, and it hasn’t been sufficient to bring entire transportation networks into the 21st century. DOT officials have been looking for ways to connect different programs and shape regional transportation systems – something earmarks will never be able to do.

“Congress is going to face a decision,” said APTA’s Carlisle, “on whether to continue earmarking, turn over more spending decisions to the administration – or finish the transportation bill.”

Given the GOP ascension in the House, providing the administration with more funding leeway may be a politically unpopular choice. We’d have to agree that producing a long-term transportation bill is the best option for reforming the earmark process.

  • Kaja

    This is some misdirection. There are three Federal programs that matter: Social Security, Medicare, Defense. Between them that’s >50% of federal outlays.

    Earmarks are a vanishingly small percentage of the problem, and fixating on them distracts from the trillion-dollar line-items.

  • sjbrown

    Sounds good to me. Ban earmarks, lower federal taxes, increase local taxes to compensate, complete the projects with that local money. Simpler, more accountable, more direct.

  • James Fujita

    @ sjbrown: You’re presuming that “increase local taxes” is likely to happen. That’s a very, very big gamble.

  • @James – it will happen in some areas, not in others. Those that invest wisely will thrive. Personally I think it would be a boon for California if we went that direction.

  • tom

    So Mrs. Schumer opposes a bike lane in Brooklyn in October 2010. You amazingly come across a March 2010 article on Mr. Schumer’s backing a road project in job-poor upstate New York. Great investigative work. Slow but great.

  • Al

    I agree with sjbrown. Yes, some areas will lose out, but ultimately it’s a lot better for people to pay taxes and see results, than for people to pay taxes, have them sent to Washington, and then distributed through some arcane politicking that has little to do with anything.

    Also, as a matter of self-interest, I believe it’s generally true that cities pay more in taxes while suburban and rural areas receive more in services. As a result, local control seems like it would improve the lot of cities.

  • CS

    @Kaja – While earmarks are a small part of the problem from the dollar amount perspective, they’re a good indicator of the seriousness of congress’s intent to reduce spending. If they can’t drop pet projects and things that are small potatoes, why would we expect them to actually take on the larger issues?

  • I’m of the mind that bikeway projects compete better than any other transportation projects in terms of moving people around cities and getting the best return on investment. I’m all for making it more competitive. I also think it’ll help change people’s perception of bike projects being “amenities” and “beautification” projects if they are in there, fighting and scrapping for the same money as other projects. Bring it on.

  • Lavern M Wilson

    Earmarks must go and so does Weakness.

  • Lavern M Wilson

    If we couldn’t see the creation of unknown zones that created the financial crisis link global tensions. We better work on strengthing our plans and pressing for who what and when around here. We have a population that is in the somewhat “what do we do mode” and requiring guidance and that would have to come from great leadership with a different plan!

    What didn’t move us yesterday, will not move us today!

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

For House GOP, Safer Streets Are the New “Bridge to Nowhere”

|
Funding to make biking and walking safer has taken something of a beating in both the House and Senate transportation bills. The fate of the most significant federal bike-ped programs — Safe Routes to School, Transportation Enhancements, and Recreational Trails — is still very much in doubt. Under the Senate bill, passed Wednesday, local agencies would at […]

Senate’s Draft Transpo Bill Ends Earmarks But Weakens Bike-Ped Programs

|
Last Friday, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee released its draft transportation reauthorization bill. With the GOP-controlled House contemplating a national transportation policy designed for maximum fossil fuel consumption, the best opportunities for reform reside in the Senate. While the 600-page draft that came out of Senator Barbara Boxer’s committee includes some key reforms […]

Congress Reluctant to Shine Light on Transportation Earmarks

|
The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is about to unveil a massive bill that will re-authorize federal transportation programs for the next six years. The bill will also include funding for a large number of "earmarks," the congressional pet projects that can include everything from bike trails to Bridges to Nowhere. Earmarks grew largely in […]

Earmark Ban Goes Down to Defeat in the Senate

|
The Senate just voted down the Republican proposal to ban earmarks. The proposed ban was met with profound ambivalence in the transportation community. Some, like Rob Sadowsky, Executive Director of the Bicycle Transportation Alliance, worried that a ban would remove a primary funding mechanism for bike-ped projects. The day after the election, Sadowsky told BikePortland, […]

Fareed Zakaria: Republicans Should Embrace an Infrastructure Bank

|
Have you seen Fareed Zakaria’s editorial in the Washington Post today? It’s pretty stunning. He begins with some pretty gloomy analysis of the country’s economic trajectory and some bad news about unemployment and growth. And just when it seems like there’s no hope and the country’s going down the tubes, he suggests one shining beacon […]