Easy on the Earmarks
August 20, 2012 |
8:30 a.m.
The administration on Friday shined a bright light on an issue central to the transportation funding debate: earmarks.
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced plans to free up $473 million in unspent infrastructure funds by letting states use the money for eligible projects that would improve transportation and create jobs.
The money--unspent funds appropriated between fiscal years 2003 and 2006--will no doubt come as a pleasant surprise to many state officials whose budgets are in a vise. Only one state, Wyoming, had no unobligated funds, while Alabama had the most at $51 million.
During the drawn-out fight to pass a transportation funding bill, advocates often complained that the congressional ban on earmarks didn't make sense when it came to transportation issues and that it stalled progress. Proponents of the ban on pet projects said it eliminated government waste.
Friday's decision shows that millions of obligated funds were, for whatever reason, never used. Is it a sign that earmarks aren't as necessary, or at least efficient, as some claim? (If allocation authority rested outside of Congress, the money may have been more quickly put to another use.) Or is Friday's decision just a reminder of the relevance of earmarks? Is it time to revisit the ban?
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced plans to free up $473 million in unspent infrastructure funds by letting states use the money for eligible projects that would improve transportation and create jobs.
The money--unspent funds appropriated between fiscal years 2003 and 2006--will no doubt come as a pleasant surprise to many state officials whose budgets are in a vise. Only one state, Wyoming, had no unobligated funds, while Alabama had the most at $51 million.
During the drawn-out fight to pass a transportation funding bill, advocates often complained that the congressional ban on earmarks didn't make sense when it came to transportation issues and that it stalled progress. Proponents of the ban on pet projects said it eliminated government waste.
Friday's decision shows that millions of obligated funds were, for whatever reason, never used. Is it a sign that earmarks aren't as necessary, or at least efficient, as some claim? (If allocation authority rested outside of Congress, the money may have been more quickly put to another use.) Or is Friday's decision just a reminder of the relevance of earmarks? Is it time to revisit the ban?
August 24, 2012 11:46 AM
Part of the Process
By Mark Aesch
Chief Executive Officer, TransPro
Earmarks are simply part of the allocation process that determines how public funds are spent.
Banning earmarks by elected officials simply increases the power and authority of the executive branch — often un-elected bureaucrats – to determine how to dispense those dollars.
The decision is whether to allow elected representatives – most of whom live or visit those communities – or staff people who predominantly work in Washington, D.C. to set priorities.
The answer, interestingly enough, is neither scenario on its own makes good sense. We must design a hybrid approach whereby the subject matter expertise of talented staff in federal agencies participate in the decision making process, balancing this with the views of the elected representatives of the people who are part of those communities. Clearly there is a way to integrate those two valuable banks of knowledge in the funding allocation process so we get the best results.
August 21, 2012 11:15 PM
Still a government of laws, not of men?
By Gabriel Roth
Research Fellow, The Independent Institute
I confess I know nothing about earmarks, but was under the impression that monies paid into the federal Highway Trust Fund were appropriated, and allocated to the states, by the legislative branch, not by the executive branch.
Those who think that $453 million is not an inconsiderable sum, might ask how it is possible that, just before an election, the executive branch is suddenly in a position to “free up” such an amount for what it deems to be “eligible projects”?
Be that as it may, does not this episode demonstrates yet again the poor management of transportation funding by the federal government, and the need to devise better ways to ensure that those who pay into transportation trust funds see their monies spent to their best advantage?