Pork Chopped

In one of my recent public tirades against Barack Obama (again in a bar on a Friday night; I know, I know, I really need to stop doing this), I came across a nice young man who, when asked why he was voting for the Democratic nominee, responded "Because he's fresh!" When I asked him to elaborate, he responded confidently that Obama was untained by Washington politics and wasn't knee-deep in things like pork barrel spending.

Um, what?

I shouldn't have been surprised by this for two reasons: a) while a pleasant sort, it was painfully obvious that this nice young man was not at all well-versed in the machinations of his candidate of choice, or politics in general (for which I don't really blame him any more than I would the vast majority of people), and b) the Obama campaign has done a splendid job of avoiding direct comparisons to the Republican candidate's record on earmarks (until the arrival of Sarah Palin on the scene). And since all the news these days is clearly biased in Obama's favor, it's not difficult to see why the press tended to gloss over this subject.

The term "earmarks" refers to requests by Senators and Representatives for federal funding of pet projects in that member of Congress' home state or district. These requests are usually tacked on to bills just prior to voting. Once the legislation is passed, the funding requests become part of the law and are appropriated. Here are the problems with earmarks:

• Transparency - as in there is none; members of Congress are not obligated to disclose how much federal money they request for their pet projects
• Procedure - the practice of tacking on a rider to a bill immediately prior to the vote is dubious at best; those rendering the decision are forced to approve spending bills they wouldn't necessarily agree with if they are in favor of the original legislation
• Causes - ostensibly, earmarks can go towards worthy projects like schools and hospitals, but politicians usually request funding for inane things that don't really warrant spending; even if the cause is worthy, many causes don't necessarily deserve federal money (i.e. your tax dollars), especially when they may have other sources of funding available

Barack Obama has a fairly poor record when it comes to earmarks. He's requested nearly a billion dollars in federal money between 2006 and 2008. In absolute terms, this is not nearly as much as others in the Senate (he's no Thad Cochran after all), but it's a fair sum considering he's been in office for only 3 years. His list of earmarks contain several shady and egregious requests, including $1 million for a new pavilion at the hospital where his wife is Vice President of Community and External Affairs, and military funding for General Dynamics, which is directed by James Crown, long-time Obama supporter and fundraiser.

Allow me to come to Obama's defense on this issue for just a moment. Earmarks are a decidedly small portion of the multi-trillion dollar budget passed by Congress. Obama has made his earmarks public record, which is certainly not the norm. Finally, Obama has finally stepped up and done the right thing by requesting no earmarks for the 2009 fiscal year, which is a lot more than we can say for certain other senators. I am giving credit where credit is due.

However, if we compare Obama's record on earmarks to Senator John McCain's, we find a stark disparity. In his 20+ years in the Senate, McCain has requested exactly zero dollars in earmarks. He eschews wasteful spending and has called on his fellow senators to do the same, unfortunately to little effect.

Why are the candidates' records on earmarks important? I believe it is one of the few ways we have of determining their fiscal responsibility based on their experiences. The deficit is about to reach an all-time high, which has the calamitous effect of raising the tax burden on our children and making it more difficult for individuals to accumulate wealth. (As an aside, there are many that argue that a moderate deficit is a good thing for the U.S. economy as it provides international collateral that promotes trade and liberates capital from inefficient markets. But is a deficit the only way to do that, and do we need such a monumental one?) While earmarks represent but a small portion of the national budget, it is one of the few indicators we have that allows us to gauge financial conservativeness. Cutting wasteful government spending eases the tax burden on all of us (and our children) and promotes individual and corporate prosperity.

Senator McCain clearly wins on this issue. I believe it is time we put a real fiscal conservative back in office, not the fake one we have now. The last thing we need is someone who plans on increasing federal spending on wasteful government projects. Obama's plan has undergone serious scrutiny and has been found wanting. While Obama plans to spend, McCain promises to cut back on expenditures and veto any bill containing profligacy in the form of earmarks.

It's comical how everyone's supposed "agent of change" is really the one mired in typical Washington lucre while the one derided as "Bush III" has been the model politician in this regard. Will the public ever learn? Even if they do, will they ever change their minds?