Something's fishy about pork debate

By Dennis Byrne
Chicago Tribune

You've got to hand it to Sen. Dick Durbin. When everyone is blasting the "earmarking" of federal funds for favored local projects, the Illinois Democrat defends the practice.

At least he's honest about it, unlike so many others who say they oppose earmarks, while soaking them up like bread dabbed in gravy. Take our favorite son and presidential candidate, Sen. Barack Obama, who says he'll get rid of them—partially at least—yet he basks in the warm gratitude of Illinois interests that are the lucky recipients of the federal loot. Obama, on his campaign Web site, touts his promise to "slash earmarks to no greater than year 2001 levels."

Wonderful.

Yet Taxpayers for Common Sense shows him sponsoring $3.3 million in earmarks in 2008. Counting earmarks he sponsored with other senators, the total comes to $98.6 million. On a list of 2007 earmarks that he disclosed was a $1 million request for the University of Chicago Medical Center, where his wife, Michelle, is a vice president. Obama told the Tribune editorial board that the university is "a major constituency of ours," so he didn't think he should "recuse" himself. Still, he said, the earmark is "probably something that we should have been passed on to . . . Durbin."

Undoubtedly, Durbin would have grabbed at the opportunity, and that tweaked the interest of Durbin's Republican rival in the November general election, Steve Sauerberg. In a statement, Sauerberg compared the pass-off to Durbin to "laundering" earmarks for Obama's family. (While Sauerberg condemned the "corrupt earmark culture in Washington," he oddly criticized Durbin for not bringing home enough bacon, i.e. earmarks, for Illinois.)

Durbin declares his love of earmarks to be above board, proudly announcing "every" project he wins for Illinois. "The Senate passed substantial reforms relative to earmarks last year," he notes on his Web site, explaining why he's against more restrictions on earmarks. "Those changes made the process more open and transparent, and they hold senators accountable for every dime of spending they push for. Openness, honesty and transparency are what's needed—not an arbitrary end to the process."

Durbin, on his own and with others, last year sponsored more than $380 million in earmarks, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense. If you look at Durbin's and Obama's lists, you'll find no Alaskan bridges to nowhere. No museums honoring Woodstock or Lawrence Welk. What you'll find is aid to women's shelters, intersection improvements, senior centers, as well as job-producing contracts to defense contractors, university research centers and the like.

For every project, there's someone who thinks that it is a good idea. Yet earmarks are bad. They distort priorities, for one thing, by shoving through the legislative process individual projects that might not be as worthy as others that are more thoroughly vetted. Generally, earmarks are a zero-sum game because each one does not necessarily increase the budget, but diverts money from some other project. Some earmarks are snuck into legislation without thorough hearings and debate. They are an invitation to corruption, serving as payback to special interests for campaign contributions.

But the more you look into the debate about earmarks, the more it looks like funny business. Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton were among a very few Democrats who recently voted for a one-year freeze on earmarks, putting themselves on record as good guys. Yet, they and everyone else knew that the proposal didn't have a chance of passage, so their votes were mere showboating.

The funny business is bipartisan: President Bush has promised to veto any appropriation that comes to him larded with earmarks, yet his own budget proposal, Democrats say, is full of earmarks.

Despite all the fighting over earmarks, there seems to be little agreement on their exact definition; each expert group of earmark watchers differs on their numbers and costs. So when Obama says he will reduce the level of earmarks to the 2001 level, it could mean, well, who knows?

We all can agree, however, that earmarks have increased despite promises to dramatically reduce them. The $14.8 billion worth of earmarks in 2007 spending bills is less than the record set in 2005. But in 2008, they're back on the way up, at $18.3 billion. Which leads to the question: Are there really enough politicians willing to seriously take on earmarks to do anything about them?