Skip to main content

Unbiased. Straight Facts.

Politics

Congress brings back earmarks after 10-year ban on pork

Sep 08, 2022

Share

Spending earmarks were banned for 10 years on Capitol Hill. The pork is back after being revived by the 117th Congress last year.

The infamous process of special spending projects for lawmakers’ home districts was barred in 2011 by Republican congressional leadership. The thinking was that cutting pork would help in three key areas:

  • keep spending under control during a time that legislators expressed concern over deficits and debt;
  • eliminate questionable projects such as a teapot museum in Sparta, North Carolina, or the notorious “Bridge to Nowhere” in Ketchikan, Alaska; and
  • help curtail corruption, like what the country witnessed when former California Republican Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham was forced to resign in disgrace and serve prison time for taking millions of dollars in bribes for earmarked projects.

However, the new Democratic majority re-instituted the practice of pork shortly after being sworn in a year and a half ago. Lawmakers and politicians reportedly resigned themselves to the idea that earmarks are how Congress gets things done.

Dr. Kevin Kosar, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, said, “In our system, the job of a representative is to represent his or her district and to do right by it, because everybody in that district is pumping money into Washington, D.C. And some of that needs to come back. That’s just basic fairness.”

Tom Schatz, the president of Citizens Against Government Waste, disagreed with the idea of bringing back pork-barrel projects just because it’s how things are done or what the people want.

“Just because the community asks for it doesn’t mean that is has merit,” he told Straight Arrow News. “In most cases, these would have been projects that were not previously funded because they didn’t likely meet the criteria for that particular project.”

Supporters of earmarks also claim that the 10-year ban never stopped the pork — it just made the process more secretive. Instead of putting earmarks in public legislation, lawmakers went to the federal agencies that control the money to get their special projects funded.

The Democrats’ new process for earmarking is supposed to be more transparent and secure. Each lawmaker is limited to 10 requests, all of which must be posted to the lawmaker’s public website. The postings have to show the communities and not just the Congress member support the projects. The funding for the project can go to only nonprofits or state or local governments. Plus, the legislator must make it clear that neither he nor his family will benefit financially from the project.

The process has also undergone a branding overhaul. The projects won’t be called “earmarks,” a term reminiscent of ranchers who “earmark” pigs to show ownership. Instead, the pork will be called “community project funding.”

This video was first published Aug. 18, 2021.

PORK IS BACK ON THE MENU. BUT NOT THAT KIND OF PORK–THIS KIND.

DONALD TRUMP: I HEAR SO MUCH ABOUT EARMARKS, THE OLD EARMARK SYSTEM HOW THERE WAS A GREAT FRIENDLINESS WHEN YOU HAD EARMARKS. MAYBE YOU SHOULD START BRINGING BACK A CONCEPT OF EARMARKS.

AND SO CONGRESS DID.

BUT IT’S NOT REPUBLICANS. IT’S DEMOCRATS WHO VOTED IT BACK FOR THE FIRST TIME SINCE 2011.

AN EARMARK IS A PROVISION ADDED TO A BILL. IT DESIGNATES FUNDING FOR A SPECIFIC PROJECT IN A CONGRESSPERSON’S HOME STATE.

IT’S OFTEN USED AS A POLITICAL BARGAINING CHIP — LIKE, YOU FUND MY PROJECT, AND I’LL VOTE ON YOUR BILL.

REPUBLICANS BANNED IT 10 YEARS AGO, CITING THESE 3 REASONS.

ONE. TO KEEP SPENDING UNDER CONTROL.

EARMARKS CAN INFLATE THE COST OF THE BILL.

TWO. SOME PROJECTS SEEMED….QUESTIONABLE.

LIKE HALF-A-MILLION DOLLARS EARMARKED FOR A TEAPOT MUSEUM IN SPARTA, NORTH CAROLINA.

AND THREE. THEY SAID IT WOULD HELP STOP CORRUPTION…

EXAMPLE, RANDY “DUKE” CUNNINGHAM.

THE FORMER CONGRESSMAN WAS FORCED TO RESIGN AND SPENT SEVEN YEARS IN PRISON FOR TAKING TWO-AND-A-HALF MILLION DOLLARS IN BRIBES FOR EARMARKED PROJECTS.

TOM SCHATZ IS PRESIDENT OF CITIZENS AGAINST GOVERNMENT WASTE, A WATCHDOG GROUP CRITICAL OF FEDERAL TAX SPENDING.

TOM SCHATZ: JUST BECAUSE THE COMMUNITY ASKS FOR IT DOESN’T MEAN THAT IT HAS MERIT. IN MOST CASES, THESE WOULD HAVE BEEN PROJECTS THAT WERE NOT PREVIOUSLY FUNDED BECAUSE THEY DIDN’T LIKELY MEET THE CRITERIA FOR THAT PARTICULAR PROJECT.

SO IF PORK REALLY ISN’T KOSHER, WHY BRING IT BACK?

DONALD TRUMP: ONE THING IT DID IS IT BROUGHT EVERYONE TOGETHER AND THE COUNTRY HAS TO BE BROUGHT TOGETHER.

YES, SUPPORTERS LIKE TRUMP AND DR. KEVIN KOSAR SAY YOU NEED EARMARKS BECAUSE, LIKE IT OR NOT, THAT’S HOW CONGRESS GETS THINGS DONE.

DR. KEVIN KOSAR: IN OUR SYSTEM, THE JOB OF A REPRESENTATIVE IS TO REPRESENT HIS OR HER DISTRICT, AND TO DO RIGHT BY IT, BECAUSE EVERYBODY IN THAT DISTRICT IS PUMPING MONEY INTO WASHINGTON, DC. AND SOME OF THAT NEEDS TO COME BACK. THAT’S JUST BASIC FAIRNESS.

SUPPORTERS ALSO SAY THE BAN NEVER STOPPED THE PORK—IT JUST MADE THE PROCESS MORE SECRETIVE.

INSTEAD OF EARMARKS GOING INTO EASY-TO-SEE LEGISLATION,

LEGISLATORS WENT DIRECTLY TO THE FEDERAL AGENCIES NOW CONTROLLING THE MONEY, TO GET IT.

BUT, THE NEW EARMARKING PROCESS IS MEANT TO BE MORE TRANSPARENT AND SECURE THIS TIME AROUND.

HERE’S HOW.

EACH LAWMAKER IS ALLOWED NO MORE THAN 10 REQUESTS.

AND THEY HAVE TO POST EACH ONE ON THEIR PUBLIC WEBSITE.

THEY ALSO HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE COMMUNITY SUPPORT.

THEY NEED TO SHOW THAT THE PEOPLE BACK HOME *WANT* THE PROJECT.

IT’S NOT JUST TO BENEFIT THE LAWMAKER.

THE MONEY CAN ALSO ONLY GO TO NON-PROFITS,

OR TO LOCAL OR STATE GOVERNMENTS.

AND, FINALLY, THE LAWMAKER REQUESTING THE FUNDING NEEDS TO SHOW THAT HE OR SHE WON’T BENEFIT FINANCIALLY FROM THE PROJECT…AND NEITHER WILL THEIR FAMILY.

NOW, IF YOU’RE WONDERING WHY MY PRODUCER SENT ME OUT HERE,

IT’S BECAUSE FARMERS MARK THEIR PIGS’ EARS TO CLEARLY SHOW OWNERSHIP.

THUS, THE TERM, “EARMARKING.”

AND THE TERM “PORK” SINCE LEGISLATORS MARK THE MONEY THEY PUT INTO A BILL SO VOTERS BACK HOME KNOW THEY ARE BRINGING BACK THE BACON.

AND WHILE I KEEP USING THE TERM “EARMARKS,” HOUSE DEMOCRATS ARE NOW REBRANDING THEM AS “COMMUNITY PROJECT FUNDING.”

WHICH OPPONENTS MIGHT SAY IS:

FAMILY GUY: JUST PUTTING LIPSTICK ON A PIG…THIS IS CALLED CRIMSON SKY WHAT DO YOU THINK?

SO, HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT THE NEW VERSION OF EARMARKS? DOES THE INCREASED TRANSPARENCY MAKE A DIFFERENCE? LET US KNOW IN THE COMMENTS.