Transparently Inadequate
The House passes a pale imitation of earmark reform. The Senate may not even manage that.

Tuesday, September 19, 2006

ONE AMAZING thing about the House passage of "earmark reform" last week was how much labor it took to bring forth this tiny mouse of change. A more amazing thing is that the Senate may not bestir itself to change its rules even that much -- though it has already voted to require such disclosure as part of the lobbying reform bill now mired in a separate disagreement with the House. All this in a year when challengers on the left and right campaign against the "bridge to nowhere" mentality of free-spending lawmakers; when lawmakers themselves acknowledge that the practice of setting aside money for pet projects is out of control; and when a congressman is serving time for taking bribes in exchange for earmarks.

How modest -- pathetic would be a more apt term -- is the House change? Henceforth, members will be required to disclose their sponsorship of certain earmarks, and by no means all of them. Beyond this limited disclosure: nothing. No provision for an up-or-down vote on such spending. No prohibition on earmarks to benefit lawmakers' relatives. No limitation on last-minute additions that offer no opportunity for scrutiny or debate.

Disclosure is useful but insufficient. Sponsors of some of the most egregious earmarks have been eager to have their names attached to the pork-barrel spending. Remember "Don Young's Way"? This $230 million earmark for a bridge in Anchorage was part of a transportation spending bill that the Alaska Republican, who chairs the House transportation committee, bragged was "stuffed like a turkey." Somehow, we doubt that forcing Mr. Young to disclose his sponsorship of Don Young's Way would have done much to persuade him to spend taxpayer dollars any more wisely.

This kind of transparency ought to be a no-brainer minimum requirement. But, in a reflection of the degree to which lawmakers have become addicted to earmarking, the change almost failed to win passage because Republican appropriators revolted against what they viewed, with justification, as unequal treatment: While earmarked funding would be covered, the sponsors of special-interest tax breaks would have to be listed only if the break was limited to a single beneficiary. Of course the definition should be broader than that.

But the fundamental points are these: First, no one should be fooled into thinking that the House's minor, loophole-ridden change is anywhere near enough. And no one should tolerate the Senate's failing to live up to even the low standard set by the other body.