American Affairs includes a wide range of articles about policy and ideas. It is scratching an itch for intellectual deep dives that my daily review of the Washington Post (satisfying though it is!) does not reach.
For example, an article called "A Case for Congressional Earmarks" (by Robert Koons) explains the philosophical, constitutional and practical reasons that earmarks can (and did, in the past) serve as a helpful mechanism in American governance.
The article provides historical facts that help frame the topic:
The sheer volume of earmarks can be burdensome and time-consuming. The number peaked at fifteen thousand in 2005, a volume that created significant backlog in congressional committees. As a result of the odd marriage of convenience between Tea Party Republicans and progressive Democrats, spurred on by the center-left Citizens against Government Waste (a vestige of good-government types left over from the failed Grace Commission of the 1980s) and the left-leaning Center for Public Integrity, Congress imposed a total ban on earmarks in 2011. To say the least, Congress’s track record in the seven years since the ban has been less than stellar.
Koons argues that we'd be better off permitting earmarks once again. He also suggests certain reforms that could address prior problems -- this is the part of the article that I find especially helpful and thought-provoking.
- Limit earmarks to appropriations bills that come in under budget.
- Limit earmarks to appropriations bills produced in the normal way, through appropriation committees. Keep the ban on earmarks added to omnibus spending bills or continuing resolutions.
- Limit earmarks to projects vetted by public hearings before the appropriate committee or subcommittee.
- Require prior approval for each earmark from the majority party leader (or his designated agent).
- Limit the total number of earmarks per representative per year—for example, four per member per year (around two thousand total).
Congress seems less functional now than at any point in my life. Other than health care, the House and Senate are not proposing possible solutions to the challenges that confront us -- immigration, climate change, technology, infrastructure, etc. Actual legislation can only result if there are a range of alternatives on the table, but I don't get a sense that the table's even being set.
That being the case, it's hard not to accept Koons's premise: allowing earmarks could be a way to grease the skids, and get things moving again.
That being the case, it's hard not to accept Koons's premise: allowing earmarks could be a way to grease the skids, and get things moving again.
