The Swine Line

OK, only in a policy-wonk hell like Washington, D.C. could a “White Paper” on earmarks be considered a “hot” item.  But that is exactly how Washington Post veteran reporter Jeff Birnbaum described reactions to this 6-page “research” paper which is supposedly making its way around Capitol Hill.     

Well, not everyone on the Hill got it, I guess, since this phosphorescently-hot screed is only just now attracting the attention of the media, even though it was apparently written on February 22, 2008.  And, you know, when it’s May, 2008, February 22 is so…yesterday.

Anyway, this radioactively-hot document is actually a rather pitiful attempt to justify congressional earmarking.  It is a not-so-subtle primer of talking points for all the folks on the Hill (the politicians, the lobbyists and lawyers who are already beating a path to the doors of their favorite approps gurus, the states’ and municipalities’ reps who are already drawing up their lengthy wish-lists of projects they swear they cannot live without but which they would like someone else to pay for, the private-sector corporations that don’t really want to bother with that pesky problem of competition and earnings and just want their sugar daddies and mamas in Congress to cut them a check, etc.).  You know who you are. 

This roadmap to earmark success is scintillatingly-titled ”The Fairness of Congressional Earmarking in American Democracy:  A Comparison of the Distribution of FY 2008 Funding (via Congressional Direction) versus FY 2007 Funding (via Federal Agency Grants).” 

The author was apparently someone named ”Jessica.”  Jeff Birnbaum seems to think that lobbyists had a hand in writing it, perhaps a shadowy group of K Street denizens with the seriously sinister name The 302(b) Group.  Who knows, he may be right.  

Our sources on the Hill tell us that there is a female staffer on the Senate Appropriations Staff (under the Centurian-like leadership of Sen. Robert Byrd) named Jessica and we have lodged a query with that Committee to find out if she was, indeed, the Jane Austen of earmark justification.  No reply yet.   

But you can already see that the arguments contained in this scorchingly-hot document have begun to blaze their way into the media as the rationalizations of prospective earmark-seekers.  You can just imagine, can’t you, how they must have been thirsting for something just like this, something that would lend gravitas to their pathetic, relentless congressional shakedowns and cadging for taxpayers dollars.

So, in this fiery-hot White Paper, Jessica is desperately trying to convince the reader that congressional earmarking is a way better way to spend the people’s money than anything the Administration or the agencies (especially the Bush Administration) could possibly dream up.  You gotta read it to really appreciate it.   

Along come Dannel P. Malloy and Robert Duffy and Mark Mallory, Mayors from Stamford, Conn. and Cincinnati, Ohio respectively.  The title of their op ed in the April 26 Washington Post?  ”‘Earmarks’ by Another Name: Democracy.” 

And wouldn’t you know it, several of Jessica’s super-duper, top-notch arguments and statistical comparisons crop up in this op ed. 

For example, in her scaldingly-hot White Paper, Jessica writes:

The Federal Transit Bus and Bus Facilities program provides funding to public transit agencies to purchase new and replacement buses as well as bus-related equipment, and to make bus facility improvements. Congress typically earmarks all of the funding provided for this program.  This year, when funding decisions were made by Congress, 313 grants were awarded to transit providers in 43 states. In the absence of earmarks in FY2007, the FTA hosted a grant competition for this funding. When these allocation decisions were left in the hands of the FTA, the agency awarded only seven (7) grants in five (5) states. 

The Mayors, in their op ed:  

In 2007, the administration awarded just seven grants for public bus transit, and half of the funding went to one city: New York. For fiscal 2008, when Congress awarded money for public transit through a reformed, open and transparent process, more than 300 agencies received grants.

Jessica, in her sizzling prose:

The methodology for awarding these grants, when left to the discretion of the Department of Justice alone, however, was not as equitable. In FY 2007, when earmarks were eliminated, the Department of Justice hosted a grant competition for this funding. To begin with, the Department pre-selected a list of law enforcement agencies who were even allowed to apply for funding. When the funding was allocated, the Department awarded only 37 grants to local law enforcement agencies in 25 states.

The Mayors:

Similarly, last year the administration gave only 37 police departments all of the funding for new law enforcement technology; this year, Congress awarded 560 law enforcement technology grants to communities in 42 states.

When Congress picks projects to receive federal funds, the selection process is more open, and spending is more fairly distributed. Most communities do not have the clout to play the bureaucratic game, and they need their members of Congress to fight to bring resources back home.

Are you catching on to the theme here?  It is very subtle, no doubt.  Democracy!  Democacy needs earmarks, essentially.  You can just see it coming. 

Which begs the question.  Why, in heaven’s name, when we are so blessed with such a level playing field in Congress, should we bother our little heads with Budget Committees and hearings and floor debates, all that other stuff?  We don’t need members of Congress to waste time posting a list of these life-saving, meritorious earmark requests on their websites.  

Why, when the congressional earmarking process is just so darned equitable and just, don’t we permit those selfless, noble lawmakers to earmark the whole darn federal budget?  (Talk amongst yourselves…I’m getting verklempt).

Why are we bothering with competitive grant-making, and merit-based awards, formula grants, measurement benchmarks, inspectors general, the government accountability office, federal agencies?   Doesn’t all this “democratizing” through the holy sancification of earmarks make you wonder why we even bother?

Let’s ask Jessica.  When she calls back.