Republican presidential candidate John McCain, R-Ariz., made the elimination of federal earmarks a centerpiece of his economic reform proposals during the 2008 campaign. While reducing or eliminating earmarks won't solve the extreme fiscal crisis our national and federal government face, it would help. And it's the right thing to do.
Earmarks are parochial pet projects lawmakers add onto spending bills without debate or review. These often are referred to as "pork" projects, and they represent federal dollars unnecessarily spent.
This week, McCain's war against earmarks joined him with a familiar partner - Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin. Feingold and McCain, along Sens. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., Tom Coburn, R-Okla., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., introduced a major bipartisan earmark reform proposal that would subject earmarks to much greater scrutiny. The Fiscal Discipline, Earmark Reform, and Accountability Act of 2009 (S.162) should quickly be passed and signed into law.
Under the act, any unauthorized earmark would require a super-majority - 60 votes - of the Senate to be kept in a bill. If an earmark is stricken from a bill, the money that was allocated for it cannot be applied to any other project. The measure also would require all reports on projects to be electronically searchable 48 hours before Senate consideration, and requires all recipients of federal funds to disclose any money spent on registered lobbyists.
It is significant that Feingold announced plans Wednesday to offer the bill as an amendment to the economic stimulus bill currently being formulated by the new Congress and the next president. Doing so would send an important signal that lawmakers are serious about being more frugal with taxpayer dollars as they work to try to stimulate a severely ailing economy.
"We're in the deepest recession in 50 years," Coburn said. "As long as earmarks exist the way they do today, we're never going to have the confidence of the American people."
He's right, which is why federal earmarks must be able to clear a high bar before spending is approved. A super-majority vote is a fairly high bar.
It's not surprising to see Feingold, or McCain for that matter, leading this fight. It's been one of their missions in the Senate, and taxpayers should be grateful for it.
Earmarks are parochial pet projects lawmakers add onto spending bills without debate or review. These often are referred to as "pork" projects, and they represent federal dollars unnecessarily spent.
This week, McCain's war against earmarks joined him with a familiar partner - Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin. Feingold and McCain, along Sens. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., Tom Coburn, R-Okla., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., introduced a major bipartisan earmark reform proposal that would subject earmarks to much greater scrutiny. The Fiscal Discipline, Earmark Reform, and Accountability Act of 2009 (S.162) should quickly be passed and signed into law.
Under the act, any unauthorized earmark would require a super-majority - 60 votes - of the Senate to be kept in a bill. If an earmark is stricken from a bill, the money that was allocated for it cannot be applied to any other project. The measure also would require all reports on projects to be electronically searchable 48 hours before Senate consideration, and requires all recipients of federal funds to disclose any money spent on registered lobbyists.
It is significant that Feingold announced plans Wednesday to offer the bill as an amendment to the economic stimulus bill currently being formulated by the new Congress and the next president. Doing so would send an important signal that lawmakers are serious about being more frugal with taxpayer dollars as they work to try to stimulate a severely ailing economy.
"We're in the deepest recession in 50 years," Coburn said. "As long as earmarks exist the way they do today, we're never going to have the confidence of the American people."
He's right, which is why federal earmarks must be able to clear a high bar before spending is approved. A super-majority vote is a fairly high bar.
It's not surprising to see Feingold, or McCain for that matter, leading this fight. It's been one of their missions in the Senate, and taxpayers should be grateful for it.
