READERS
DIGEST
March
2004
Hog Wild:
Stupid Ways States Waste Money
By John Berlau
Plenty
of pork: See how your state rates.
Your tax money
for a rain forest in Iowa?
Yep, Congress is at it again.
It's a vision right out of the movie Field of
Dreams. Build it, and they will come. But this time, it's no ballpark
they're creating in the Iowa heartland; it's an indoor rain forest. "We
don't have a Gateway Arch like St. Louis or a Space Needle like Seattle," says David Oman, chief administrator of
the Iowa Environmental/Education Project. "Those are special things [that]
put those locations on the map." Sound ridiculous to construct a rain
forest in the middle of prairie country? It gets funnier: You're paying for a
good part of it, to the tune of $50 million.
Sen. Charles Grassley (R., Iowa), the powerful
chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, is just one of the senior lawmakers
who slipped pet projects, known as earmarks, into this year's mammoth Omnibus
Bill. The main purpose of this legislation is to fund a number of federal
agencies and departments, including the Departments of Justice, Education and
Veterans Affairs. But in a time-honored tradition, heavyweights on Capitol Hill
got plenty of pork into the bill with little notice and no real debate.
"Actually, this Congress is setting records for its spending on
earmarks," says Thomas Mann, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.
Nearly eight thousand earmarks are shoehorned into the Omnibus Bill, totaling
almost $11 billion, according to the nonpartisan organization Taxpayers for
Common Sense. "The big spenders in this body have all but stolen the
credit card numbers of every hard-working taxpayer," declared Sen. John McCain
on the floor of the Senate.
In this time of massive deficits, just where is
our money going? Here's a sampler: $1.8 million will go to California for
exotic pet diseases research; $2 million is being handed to the First Tee
program, headquartered in St. Augustine, Fla., which uses golf to teach
"life skills" to kids; the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland is
getting $200,000 to educate schoolchildren about rock music; $325,000 will pay
for a public swimming pool in Salinas, Calif.; $175,000 is the price tag for a
mural that will be painted on a flood wall in Cape Girardeau, Mo.; North Pole,
Alaska (population: 1,646), will get $200,000 for recreational improvements. And on, and on.
"It's not chump change anymore. It's big money," says Rep. Jeff Flake (R., Ariz.), a
Congressional critic of pork-barrel spending. Consider that the cost of all
earmarks for 2003 was a whopping $22.5 billion, according to the watchdog group
Citizens Against Government Waste. "That's almost
$23 billion that cannot be spent on defense, homeland security, education, tax
relief or deficit reduction," notes Brian Riedl,
federal budget analyst for the Heritage Foundation, a Washington-based think
tank.
If earmarks had to be voted up or down on their
own merits, many wouldn't pass muster. But once they're attached to a large
bill that funds vital functions of the government, they're hard to destroy.
"Often they're just added at the end, buried in a bill that's three feet
high," says Flake. Even if the pork gets noticed, most legislators won't
vote down an entire bill just to kill a few projects. "You risk being
accused of shutting down the government, or denying funds for AIDS, or whatever
else the bill would have provided," says Mann of the Brookings
Institution.
And the number of earmarks has exploded in
recent years. In contrast to the 8,000 in the 2004 Omnibus Bill, there were
about 2,000 earmarks in all of the spending bills in 1998. Technology is partly
to blame, says David Williams, vice president for policy at Citizens Against Government Waste. A member of Congress "can
just fill out a form online, send it to the Appropriations Committee, and
pretty much get an earmark."
The process is tilted toward members of the
House and Senate Appropriations Committees. It's no coincidence that Alaska, home state of Senate Appropriations Committee
chairman Ted Stevens, a Republican, ranks third in the money it gets from the
bill's earmarks, although -- next to Wyoming -- it's the nation's least-populated state.
Then there's Sen. Patty Murray (D., Wash.), another member of the committee,
who helped secure $373 million in earmarks for her state. This includes $1
million for a "vehicular flywheel project" that benefits a Seattle alternative energy firm. In fact, Seattle alone gets more than the combined amount for 22
states.
Robert Byrd (D., W.Va.), the Senate
Appropriations Committee ranking member and former chairman, still manages well
despite being in the minority party. West Virginia's rank in the bill is seventh. "It's
pretty much a dead heat between the two parties" as to who gets the most
money from earmarks, says Keith Ashdown, vice president of policy and
communications at Taxpayers for Common Sense.
Ask the politicians about the pork they're
getting, and many just shrug. Senator Grassley has conceded that $50 million
for the Iowa rain-forest project is "not a spit in the
ocean." But he added, "if this money wasn't
spent in Iowa, would it be spent in West Virginia or Alaska because they have powerful Senators on the
Appropriations Committee? I'm kind of embarrassed [when] I end up helping other
states, but I don't help my own state." Grassley went on to praise the
rain-forest project as an educational resource and job creator. His colleague
Senator McCain is pushing a rule change that would shine a spotlight on
earmarks. Co-sponsored by Sen. Russ Feingold (D., Wis.), the measure would
allow every Senator to object to a specific item of pork and, if it is not
approved by at least 60 members, yank it from the bill. "We need to change
the way we do business," McCain says. "If I sound angry and upset, it
is because the people I represent are angry and upset."
Jeff Flake has come up with his own answer: He
refuses to request earmarks for his district. "Most of my constituents understand,"
he says. "They're sick of this spending spree."
Others on Capitol Hill might get on board if
they attend a seminar on the federal budget at the University of Akron in Ohio titled "Exercise in Hard Choices."
They have reason to show up -- after all, they earmarked $500,000 for it in the
Omnibus Bill.