John Fund
Wall Street Journal Editorial
August 2, 2008
The Republican Party is facing what Ronald Reagan called "a time for
choosing." A real argument is raging over how much it should turn its
back on the bad habits that cost it control of Congress in 2006.
Just after that debacle, Alaska's Sen. Ted Stevens, the father of the
infamous "Bridge to Nowhere," encountered Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn, the
antipork crusader who had held up many of the projects so many members
believe are the key to their re-election. Mr. Stevens said, "Well, Tom,
I hope you're satisfied for helping us lose the election." Mr. Coburn
replied, "No, Ted, you lost us this election."
The data favored Mr. Coburn: 2006 exit polls revealed that corruption
in government was second only to the Iraq war as the driving force
behind the Democratic takeover. A major part of that corruption was
earmarks -- pork projects members often secure in secret. Earmarks were
at the heart of the scandals that sent Republican lobbyist Jack
Abramoff and former Calif. Rep. Duke Cunningham to jail.
This week's events further discredited the earmark culture. On Tuesday,
Mr. Stevens, ranking Republican on the Appropriations Committee, had to
step down after being indicted for failing to report over $250,000 in
gifts from a firm that sought earmarks from him. The day before,
Republicans enjoyed a rare success when they beat back an attempt by
Majority Leader Harry Reid to ram through an earmark-laden omnibus bill
that Mr. Coburn had refused to help pass by the often-abused "unanimous
consent" process.
Mr. Reid had wanted to get the $10 billion package passed without
debate. But while containing some worthwhile projects, the "Tomnibus"
bill -- a name picked to mock Mr. Coburn -- was also stuffed with money
for the Smithsonian's orchid collection, a $5 million museum in Poland
and a traveling exhibit on the War of 1812. Mr. Reid claimed his
package merely authorized the spending of money rather than
appropriated it and thus "doesn't cost a penny." Republicans ridiculed
that logic and stood by Mr. Coburn, who says earmarks serve as "a
gateway drug on the road to spending addiction."
Mr. Coburn notes that many members feel compelled to vote for bloated
spending bills, fearing their local projects will be stripped out. But
he says that with each new scandal, the political value of earmarks
goes down: "If only one-tenth of one percent of the 15,000 earmarks we
have involve corruption, that's 15 headlines a year Congress can't
afford."
John McCain won the GOP nomination and retains support from independent
voters today in part because he vows to veto any bill containing
pork-barrel projects. Arizona Rep. Jeff Flake, Mr. Coburn's antiearmark
counterpart in the House, thinks voters in GOP districts are now
disgusted enough to make the political costs to a member seeking pork
greater than the benefits.
One reason Congress now has even lower approval numbers than in 2006 is
the failure of Democrats to make good on their vow to clean up the
earmark process. A "moratorium" on earmarks has been quietly set aside;
and the Congressional Research Service has been directed by
Congressional leaders to no longer respond to requests from members on
the size, number or background of earmarks. "Democrats claim the
earmarks will now be transparent, but they're taking away the very data
that lets us know what's really happening," says South Carolina Sen.
Jim DeMint. Democratic earmark reform, concludes Mr. Coburn, "not only
failed to drain the swamp, but gave the alligators new rights."
Mr. Coburn's main point on earmarks is that senators must choose
between a culture of parochialism and a culture that puts the national
interest first. He stipulates that few members are corrupt, and that
most go with the flow. He has even offered to release his holds on
earmarks -- if their sponsors will propose reducing federal spending
elsewhere, so "we aren't just dumping more debt on our kids."
His offer hasn't been popular. Included in the Reid package was $1.67
billion for ocean and coastal programs that were pet projects of Mr.
Stevens. But the Alaska senator has refused to even discuss spending
offsets to pay for what he calls "Stevens money." In 2005, there was so
much "Stevens money" that Alaska snared almost $1,000 in earmarked
federal funding for every resident, 30 times what went to the average
state, based on population.
Mr. Stevens was a big reason the earmark culture had such a grip on
Senate Republicans: Few dared risk his wrath. When he became chairman
of the Appropriations Committee in 1997, he proudly proclaimed, "I'm a
mean, miserable SOB." When Mr. Coburn dared challenge his $228 million
"Bridge to Nowhere" in 2005, Mr. Stevens warned fellow senators "if we
start cutting funding for individual projects, your project may be
next."
In the House, GOP Rep. Don Young of Alaska -- the former Transportation
Committee chair who stuffed the last highway bill with over 6,000
earmarks -- played a similar intimidation game. "Those who bite me will
be bitten back," Mr. Young warned Rep. Scott Garrett last year. Mr.
Garrett, a New Jersey Republican, had tried to kill a $34 million
earmark sponsored by Mr. Young.
Now Mr. Stevens is almost certain to lose his Senate seat -- either
through defeat or conviction on felony charges. And Mr. Young is
trailing in Alaska's August 26 primary to Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell, a
protégé of Alaska's reform Republican Gov. Sarah Pallin.
Here's hoping the removal of both men from Capitol Hill stiffens the
spine of more Republicans to forswear the earmark culture.
They may not like it, but Mr. Coburn is showing Republicans how the GOP
can return to its small government roots. Consider Ronald Reagan, who
in 1987 vetoed a highway bill because it had a mere 121 earmarks in it.
Reagan quoted a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to James Madison in
1796, warning that allowing Congress to spend federal money for local
projects would set off "a scene of scramble among the members (for) who
can get the most money wasted in their State, and they will always get
most who are meanest." Reagan didn't think that represented good
government or good politics. Republicans today should heed his warning.
