Earmarks: Their Merit Lies Within the Eye of the Beholder

ORLANDO, Fla. -- President Obama issued an unequivocal promise during his second State of the Union address: "If a bill comes to my desk with earmarks inside, I will veto it."

The pledge drew loud applause but also puzzlement.

"I guess the big question is: What is your definition of 'earmarks'?" says Malia Hale, a Washington lobbyist for the National Wildlife Federation.

Obama underlined his promise by issuing it twice during the address. The rhetoric was designed to appease Senate and House Republicans -- who already have banned earmarks -- and mollify an electorate leery of a federal deficit projected to reach a historic $1.5 trillion this year.

But one person's earmark is another's national treasure.

Lawmakers use earmarks to direct money toward their home districts. The process long has been derided for funding projects based on political clout as much as any real merit. Perhaps the most famous example is Alaska's "bridge to nowhere," funded thanks to an earmark by a master of the practice, the late Sen. Ted Stevens.

When House Republicans, then in the minority, first voted early last year to ban earmarks, all but four withdrew earmark requests, including those intended to restore the Florida Everglades. Suddenly the 11,000-square-mile region supporting dozens of federally threatened and endangered species -- and supplying some 200 million gallons of drinking water daily for South Floridians -- was an earmark.

Bill Nelson, Florida's senior senator, exemplifies the confusion and ambivalence surrounding the word. Weeks after the November elections gave them control of the House, Republicans voted again to ban earmarks, and their Senate counterparts quickly did the same, although Democrats still maintain control of the upper chamber. Nelson was among seven Democrats who voted with the GOP for the ban -- but he included some $30 million in earmark requests in a spending bill introduced in December. (Nelson is a strong supporter of Everglades restoration.)

"You ought to be duly concerned with this new era of politics that we're in," he said during an address at last month's Everglades Coalition conference. "It's true some earmarks have been abused. But I can tell you that although I will eschew most earmarks, I will not deny myself the constitutional responsibility to represent my country and my state to the best of my ability, and when that means recommending and requiring appropriation for major projects like Everglades restoration, I will continue to do so."

Earmarks represent a small part of the multi-trillion-dollar federal budget, totaling $15.9 billion during this past fiscal year. But Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan watchdog organization, argues that is significant considering the amount of non-discretionary spending in the budget for entitlements such as Social Security.

From "a common sense point-of-view, that is a lot of money," he said. "That is more money than you and I ever are going to see in our lifetime, and so I think it almost tells you something about the type of problems we have, that to Congress that isn't anything."

Five Everglades projects are awaiting congressional authorization before they can begin, putting to work construction workers idled by the state's housing bust, said Julie Hill-Gabriel, senior Everglades policy associate for Audubon of Florida. The projects, together totaling between $750 million and $1 billion, address water flows polluting Florida Bay and salinity problems in Biscayne Bay, a threat to South Florida's water supply. The projects also address water flows from Lake Okeechobee polluting coastal estuaries, and they expand wetlands, preventing flooding of urban areas. The last project continues restoration of the Kissimmee River, supporting wildlife and water quality.

Hill-Gabriel noted this cost is shared equally by the state and federal government, and she pointed to the projects' far-reaching benefits for tourism, property values and the state's economy. She said the federal government estimates that every $10 million spent on stimulus construction projects translates into at least 130 jobs in Florida.

"That's not a pet project," she said of Everglades restoration. "Whether or not you agree with earmarks, I don't think Everglades restoration should be within that definition."

Even some of Obama's fellow Democrats have criticized an earmark ban because almost everyone agrees it cedes more federal spending power to the White House and other federal agencies, weakening the legislative branch's oversight of spending. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid described the idea as "a lot of pretty talk" and asserted that "it hurts a member of Congress' ability to help people." Sen. Jon Tester, a Montana Democrat, wrote, "Unlike some Washington bureaucrat who sits in a cubicle all day, I know Montana."

Ellis, of the taxpayers' group, said senators will not introduce earmarks that cannot survive the Republican-controlled House. That makes the president's earmark promise a political freebie. It reminds Democrats that it is useless for them to introduce earmarks, and it pressures Congress and the administration to create a federal spending process that isn't based on earmarks, he said.

"I would be shocked if the president would say, 'Oh, no, no. That doesn't count,' because I guarantee you there would be a lot of people who would be jumping on him as a hypocrite," Ellis said of Everglades restoration. "From our perspective we've always known there are good and worthwhile projects that are funded through earmarks, but it doesn't have to be done that way. What we need to move toward is a system where we prioritize funding based on merit and competition and information rather than political muscle."