News
It's been a disappointing month for the Hungry Lil' Readers Club in Minneapolis and the History Museum of East Otter Tail County in Perham, Minn. As reporters Rob Hotakainen and Brady Averill chronicled in Sunday's Star Tribune, they are two among scores of projects across the country that won't get federal funding because congressional Democrats decided to delete thousands of "earmarks'' from the 2007 federal budget.
But that painful decision by Congress' incoming majority was the right one. The earmark - a home-district project advanced by a single member of Congress - is a symptom of the shambles that congressional budgeting has become in the last five years. Cracking down on earmarks is the necessary first step toward restoring fiscal discipline on Capitol Hill - it would help cure the chronic federal deficit and ensure that individual spending proposals are judged on their merits.
It's worth remembering that for every meritorious home-district project, there are dozens more that earn the Beltway nickname "pork.'' Consider these gems from the 2005 federal budget: a $1.8 million berry research program in Alaska; a $469,000 grant for the National Wild Turkey Federation in South Carolina and $100,000 for the New Hampshire Go-Girl-Go program.
To be sure, the definition of pork is subjective. The $3.6 million that Congress appropriated in 2005 for the Appalachian Fruit Laboratory might represent legitimate research in agronomy and nutrition, or it might be a boondoggle for some constituent of Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va.
The point is that such proposals should be scrutinized by congressional committees with jurisdiction and expertise, considered within the government's overall annual spending target, and weighed against all the other proposals that probably merit taxpayer support. Earmarks are not: They are not requested by the federal agency that receives the money, not subject to committee hearings and not judged competitively against other worthy requests.
Pork has always been part of congressional budgeting - necessary because it balms the wounds inflicted by big budget compromises and harmless because the dollar amounts used to be small.
But the amounts aren't small anymore. Citizens Against Government Waste estimates that the number of earmarks has skyrocketed to nearly 10,000 individual projects worth $29 billion last year. That's real money, even in a federal budget that's approaching $3 trillion.
Worse, earmarks contribute to the sleazy culture that brought down several members of Congress this year: Secret appropriations make it too easy to do secret favors for well-connected constituents.
President Bush praised the Democrats' budget decision last week as a sign of genuine discipline. It will be an even better sign if they stick to it in the face of the difficult decisions that will confront them in the coming months.
BLOAT
Citizens Against Government Waste, a Washington watchdog group, says that pork-barrel spending has grown from 546 projects worth $3.1 billion in 1991 to nearly 10,000 projects costing $29 billion last year.
But that painful decision by Congress' incoming majority was the right one. The earmark - a home-district project advanced by a single member of Congress - is a symptom of the shambles that congressional budgeting has become in the last five years. Cracking down on earmarks is the necessary first step toward restoring fiscal discipline on Capitol Hill - it would help cure the chronic federal deficit and ensure that individual spending proposals are judged on their merits.
It's worth remembering that for every meritorious home-district project, there are dozens more that earn the Beltway nickname "pork.'' Consider these gems from the 2005 federal budget: a $1.8 million berry research program in Alaska; a $469,000 grant for the National Wild Turkey Federation in South Carolina and $100,000 for the New Hampshire Go-Girl-Go program.
To be sure, the definition of pork is subjective. The $3.6 million that Congress appropriated in 2005 for the Appalachian Fruit Laboratory might represent legitimate research in agronomy and nutrition, or it might be a boondoggle for some constituent of Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va.
The point is that such proposals should be scrutinized by congressional committees with jurisdiction and expertise, considered within the government's overall annual spending target, and weighed against all the other proposals that probably merit taxpayer support. Earmarks are not: They are not requested by the federal agency that receives the money, not subject to committee hearings and not judged competitively against other worthy requests.
Pork has always been part of congressional budgeting - necessary because it balms the wounds inflicted by big budget compromises and harmless because the dollar amounts used to be small.
But the amounts aren't small anymore. Citizens Against Government Waste estimates that the number of earmarks has skyrocketed to nearly 10,000 individual projects worth $29 billion last year. That's real money, even in a federal budget that's approaching $3 trillion.
Worse, earmarks contribute to the sleazy culture that brought down several members of Congress this year: Secret appropriations make it too easy to do secret favors for well-connected constituents.
President Bush praised the Democrats' budget decision last week as a sign of genuine discipline. It will be an even better sign if they stick to it in the face of the difficult decisions that will confront them in the coming months.
BLOAT
Citizens Against Government Waste, a Washington watchdog group, says that pork-barrel spending has grown from 546 projects worth $3.1 billion in 1991 to nearly 10,000 projects costing $29 billion last year.
