STREAMING NOW: Watch Now

Trump floats bringing back earmarks

White House Director of Legislative Affairs Marc Short explains what President Trump means when he suggests bringing back congressional earmarks.

Posted: Dec 19, 2018 4:03 PM
Updated: Dec 19, 2018 4:12 PM

Eight years after congressional leaders banned earmarks in an effort to cut spending and improve trust in government, the incoming House majority leader is suggesting that the new Congress is likely to bring the old practice back.

It's the worst kept secret in Washington that most members of Congress love earmarks -- which enable members to direct federal spending to projects in their home districts. On December 11, incoming Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said that some form of earmarks are coming back, and that he expected bipartisan support in the House and Senate to bring them back. The change is long overdue.

Earmarks are a vital incentive to encourage lawmakers to support legislation. Party and committee leadership can say to lawmakers who are wavering on supporting a bill, "what priority in your district can I help you with in order to get your support for my proposal?" They are a carrot in a Congress that has tried for the last eight years to work with only sticks. They're even more critical to bring back during this moment of intense partisan disagreement.

Most members of Congress don't just think earmarks are a good idea because they love getting money for their home districts. It's because they understand that the Constitution vests the power to spend money with Congress -- and who would know what projects are important in a district better than its elected representative? It's also because they understand that without earmarks, the system just doesn't work.

The last eight years provide plenty of evidence. Earmarks act like money in the economy of Congress. You can trade it, you can bargain with it and you can use it to get people to work together.

It has been a long time since earmarks have been around, and many of the current and new members of Congress have never requested one before. So it's useful to remember what they actually are. A Congressional earmark is a provision in legislation put in at the request of a single lawmaker directing a specific amount of money to a specific entity or state, locality or congressional district. An example would be a lawmaker from Kentucky putting language into a bill that directed a federal agency to spend $1.3 million on fixing the roof of a school in Louisville.

When John Boehner and Mitch McConnell banned earmarks in 2011, they thought it would help reduce spending and improve trust in government. For starters, the idea that an earmark ban would reduce spending to any meaningful degree is wrong. Earmarks have historically accounted for less than $20 billion a year, which would be about 2% of discretionary spending last fiscal year, according to The Concord Coalition, a bipartisan fiscal advocacy group. If you include non-discretionary spending, they account for less than half a percent of total government spending. In the years since the earmark ban, federal deficits have ballooned along with the overall debt.

Trust in government hasn't gone up either. The biggest opponents of earmarks often decried them as wasteful and emblematic of a Washington full of profligate and irresponsible spenders of taxpayer money. But removing earmarks from the system has not increased American trust in Congress. Forty-six percent of Americans said in a recent Gallup poll that they had very little confidence in Congress, up from 44% when the earmark ban first went into effect.

So if banning earmarks didn't reduce spending and didn't increase trust in Congress as an institution, what did the ban produce? Gridlock and total inaction. Congress has not exactly been a fine-tuned machine lately; in both divided governments and unified Republican legislatures, lawmakers have barely been able to pass even the most basic pieces of legislative business -- from the debt ceiling increase to the yearly appropriations bills. Republicans even found it impossible to pass a health care reform bill, despite total control of Congress and the White House, and years of campaigning on that very promise.

With a return of earmarks, President Trump and Democrats in Congress might be able to work out a big infrastructure law that has a reasonable chance of passing and would create jobs and make the commutes of millions of Americans safer and faster.

There are challenges to earmarks. Some lawmakers and conservative media platforms will always hate earmarks, and many national publications will give negative coverage to the earmark process by default. The posterchild for earmark opponents is the Gravina Island access project in Alaska, better known as, "the bridge to nowhere." This project became infamous thanks to a $223 million earmark secured by Rep. Don Young for a project to connect a city of 8,000 people in Alaska to the region's international airport, located on Gravina Island (population: 50 people).

Opponents of earmarks used this as an example of the problems with the practice by claiming the bridge was being built for the fifty people living on Gravina Island. It irks some taxpayers that the government is spending millions of dollars on behalf of fifty people, but what about 8,050 people? It was the judgment of Congressman Young that this was a good thing for his district. Voters and lawmakers can, and should, debate whether expenditures on any given project are worth it, but spending via earmark is not inherently corrupt.

There have been truly corrupt earmarks, but those are very rare and the result of illegal activity. A good example of this was when Rep. Duke Cunningham accepted cash bribes for directing federal contracts via earmarks to military contractors. Lawmakers who accept bribes should be prosecuted, and those earmarks should be stripped out of legislation, which is exactly what happened to Rep. Cunningham.

Majority Leader Hoyer and the Democrats in the house can mitigate both the perception of corruption -- and rare instances of actual corruption -- in earmarks by creating a transparent and fair system that gives taxpayers a full account of all congressional earmarks, and allows for a fair vetting process that weeds out any that don't pass the giggle test.

Earmarks are a bad word for making good things happen. They represent an insignificant amount of federal spending, they grease the legislative pipeline in Congress, they provide funding to many important projects, and they are a part of a constitutionally important role for the Congress. Lawmakers need incentives to work together now more than ever. Our politics has gone off the deep end and there is very little incentive for collaboration. But we still have many problems that call out for public policy solutions. Give lawmakers the tool to make laws. Bring back earmarks.

Indiana Coronavirus Cases

Data is updated nightly.

Cases: 295357

Reported Deaths: 5305
CountyCasesDeaths
Marion40796844
Lake25864448
Allen17025289
Elkhart16389209
St. Joseph16125217
Hamilton12225163
Vanderburgh9218112
Tippecanoe807627
Porter770176
Johnson5971161
Hendricks5719154
Vigo563274
Monroe519846
Clark486774
Delaware4721103
Madison4651119
Kosciusko437339
LaPorte436792
Howard321375
Warrick309072
Floyd301177
Bartholomew296262
Wayne292261
Cass291231
Marshall283642
Grant254147
Noble244246
Hancock238949
Henry234136
Boone231754
Dubois229230
Dearborn204629
Jackson200033
Morgan196043
Gibson171622
Knox170715
Clinton170420
Shelby170453
Lawrence169246
DeKalb168428
Adams160019
Miami150414
Daviess149143
Wabash148118
Fayette141233
Steuben139713
LaGrange135127
Jasper134911
Harrison134624
Montgomery127926
Whitley127410
Ripley121414
Decatur119842
Posey116613
Putnam115626
Wells115427
Huntington115210
White115221
Randolph114619
Clay111821
Jefferson110314
Scott97918
Greene97553
Jay93012
Starke87021
Sullivan85515
Perry80521
Spencer7957
Jennings79114
Fulton78717
Fountain7257
Washington6966
Carroll65313
Orange64828
Franklin63525
Owen5676
Vermillion5662
Newton53412
Parke5296
Tipton52826
Blackford50011
Rush5006
Pike49618
Pulaski36410
Martin3425
Brown3153
Benton3101
Crawford2711
Union2551
Switzerland2453
Warren2272
Ohio2227
Unassigned0265

Ohio Coronavirus Cases

Data is updated nightly.

Cases: 351419

Reported Deaths: 5996
CountyCasesDeaths
Franklin48389665
Cuyahoga34096734
Hamilton28674371
Montgomery19082225
Butler14138144
Lucas13446406
Summit12431309
Stark8122197
Warren770375
Mahoning6772299
Lake625466
Lorain590297
Clermont541946
Delaware521435
Licking506275
Fairfield505163
Trumbull4969144
Greene489662
Clark486664
Marion451451
Allen446384
Wood4243107
Medina413354
Miami398565
Pickaway387948
Columbiana328496
Portage323171
Wayne303593
Tuscarawas299557
Richland293929
Mercer281237
Ross234559
Hancock225336
Muskingum223610
Auglaize218925
Putnam218649
Darke208058
Erie205565
Ashtabula204753
Geauga189451
Scioto186713
Lawrence181336
Athens17954
Union17928
Shelby176715
Seneca165018
Belmont151529
Madison151018
Sandusky144427
Preble143821
Huron139218
Holmes137039
Defiance131121
Knox118818
Logan118313
Fulton117225
Ottawa114730
Crawford114216
Washington112427
Clinton100314
Williams9938
Jefferson9894
Ashland98322
Highland96317
Henry94422
Brown9324
Champaign8935
Jackson87312
Fayette86617
Van Wert8596
Morrow8312
Hardin82518
Guernsey79213
Coshocton78813
Perry73312
Pike7081
Adams70611
Wyandot68916
Gallia68113
Paulding61710
Hocking58511
Noble56121
Carroll41610
Meigs36312
Monroe29921
Morgan2342
Vinton2075
Harrison1823
Unassigned00
Fort Wayne
Clear
32° wxIcon
Hi: 46° Lo: 29°
Feels Like: 32°
Angola
28° wxIcon
Hi: 44° Lo: 27°
Feels Like: 28°
Huntington
Clear
32° wxIcon
Hi: 44° Lo: 30°
Feels Like: 32°
Decatur
Clear
32° wxIcon
Hi: 46° Lo: 31°
Feels Like: 32°
Van Wert
Clear
32° wxIcon
Hi: 46° Lo: 30°
Feels Like: 32°
Snow/Rain Showers Tuesday
WFFT Radar
WFFT Temperatures
WFFT National

Community Events