News from Washington, D.C. is that the federal earmarks may soon be returning. This is good news for road and bridge projects around the country.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/16/politics/congress-earmarks-house-senate/index.html
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/02/congressional-earmarks-are-coming-back.html
Quote from: ITB on March 02, 2021, 04:44:43 AM
News from Washington, D.C. is that the federal earmarks may soon be returning. This is good news for road and bridge projects around the country.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/16/politics/congress-earmarks-house-senate/index.html
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/02/congressional-earmarks-are-coming-back.html
This is bad news for the country and will lead to future unfunded mandates and unfunded earmarks. Such a waste of taxpayer money.
Earmarks were the only way the ACA got its required 60 votes. Earmarks will make it easier for legislation to pass.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on March 02, 2021, 07:17:33 AM
Quote from: ITB on March 02, 2021, 04:44:43 AM
News from Washington, D.C. is that the federal earmarks may soon be returning. This is good news for road and bridge projects around the country.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/16/politics/congress-earmarks-house-senate/index.html
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/02/congressional-earmarks-are-coming-back.html
This is bad news for the country and will lead to future unfunded mandates and unfunded earmarks. Such a waste of taxpayer money.
Pork?
Quote from: 1 on March 02, 2021, 07:22:53 AM
This ... will lead to future unfunded mandates and unfunded earmarks.
Quote from: 1 on March 02, 2021, 07:22:53 AM
Earmarks will make it easier for legislation to pass.
Those two statements are not contradictory.
Someone on here in another thread was saying how the horse trading over earmarks had the effect of forcing these frickin' Congresspeople to work with each other on stuff. Yes it was vulnerable to abuse, but it did incentivize folks to talk to each other and hammer it out. Otherwise, what's the motivation to stick one's neck out on something when there's nothing in it for 'my' district? All cooperation does in the present scheme is give a more radical primary opponent a cudgel to beat you with. At least with the earmark, you can point to the new bypass or whatever as the 'reward' for going along with the other side on something.
It's far from a panacea to depolarize this stupid country, but used responsibly, earmarks could be a useful step toward that end.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on March 02, 2021, 12:57:39 PM
Someone on here in another thread was saying how the horse trading over earmarks had the effect of forcing these frickin' Congresspeople to work with each other on stuff. Yes it was vulnerable to abuse, but it did incentivize folks to talk to each other and hammer it out. Otherwise, what's the motivation to stick one's neck out on something when there's nothing in it for 'my' district? All cooperation does in the present scheme is give a more radical primary opponent a cudgel to beat you with. At least with the earmark, you can point to the new bypass or whatever as the 'reward' for going along with the other side on something.
It's far from a panacea to depolarize this stupid country, but used responsibly, earmarks could be a useful step toward that end.
That sub-conversation started
roughly here (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3324.msg2566027#msg2566027).
The comment you're probably remembering specifically is this:
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 25, 2021, 11:48:15 PM
Perhaps the more costly consequence of banning earmarks: it radically inflamed political polarization. There is very little incentive for Republicans and Democrats to work across party lines on anything substantial because very little REAL deal-making can be done. Cooperating across the aisle is now seen as weak or even an act of betrayal. It's easier to preach to the "base" extremists in a partisan echo-chamber. Both sides now play a zero sum game, treating members of the rival party as an enemy. 40 years ago Republicans and Democrats didn't like each other very much, but the tone (at least in public) was substantially more civil.
Earmarks are ineffective. Earmarks greatly underfund projects. This led to the recent efforts to "repurpose" old earmarks (past few years) by states and FHWA. And by old earmarks, I mean some that have sat around for over a decade, if not over two. So, those old earmarks are now being used on totally different projects, albeit within some radius of the original intended project.
There's good reason why DOTs groan behind the scenes when an earmark comes their way.
I fully support earmarks -- the designation by the legislature for a specific amount of money to go to a specific project. The representative from the 99th District of Alanland knows more about what that district needs than do the bureaucrats in the capital city.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on March 02, 2021, 07:17:33 AM
This is bad news for the country and will lead to future unfunded mandates and unfunded earmarks. Such a waste of taxpayer money.
Hey look, it's the only post you ever make.
Quote from: hbelkins on March 02, 2021, 11:24:50 PM
I fully support earmarks -- the designation by the legislature for a specific amount of money to go to a specific project. The representative from the 99th District of Alanland knows more about what that district needs than do the bureaucrats in the capital city.
This is exactly what I mean: They look good on paper, but in practice, they're idiotic and just pains in the neck as most go year to year without being used due to lack of additional funding (usually a local match).
Quote from: Rothman on March 03, 2021, 07:06:28 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on March 02, 2021, 11:24:50 PM
I fully support earmarks -- the designation by the legislature for a specific amount of money to go to a specific project. The representative from the 99th District of Alanland knows more about what that district needs than do the bureaucrats in the capital city.
This is exactly what I mean: They look good on paper, but in practice, they're idiotic and just pains in the neck as most go year to year without being used due to lack of additional funding (usually a local match).
Earmarks should be limited to major projects that benefit a region as a whole and only when there is a clear need. I know, that is a pipe dream that will never happen.
Earmarks=unfunded mandates
What happens when you build your super road and have no money to maintain it? TN does not float bonds for road projects with the exception for a bond that is already funded in the bank and floated against that money.
Quote from: I-39 on March 03, 2021, 08:42:25 AM
Quote from: Rothman on March 03, 2021, 07:06:28 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on March 02, 2021, 11:24:50 PM
I fully support earmarks -- the designation by the legislature for a specific amount of money to go to a specific project. The representative from the 99th District of Alanland knows more about what that district needs than do the bureaucrats in the capital city.
This is exactly what I mean: They look good on paper, but in practice, they're idiotic and just pains in the neck as most go year to year without being used due to lack of additional funding (usually a local match).
Earmarks should be limited to major projects that benefit a region as a whole and only when there is a clear need. I know, that is a pipe dream that will never happen.
Some are already, but then they only provide, say, $5m for a $80m project. Most states will never find the remaining funds to get the project really rolling, so the earmark sits unused.
And now, with FHWA having the authority to repurpose the earmarks, the $5m gets assigned to another project in the loose general facility at the State's request.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on March 03, 2021, 10:40:38 AM
Earmarks=unfunded mandates
What happens when you build your super road and have no money to maintain it? TN does not float bonds for road projects with the exception for a bond that is already funded in the bank and floated against that money.
That's an entirely additional issue. For me, we aren't past the point of ensuring earmarks are going towards feasible projects.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on March 03, 2021, 10:40:38 AM
Earmarks=unfunded mandates
What happens when you build your super road and have no money to maintain it? TN does not float bonds for road projects with the exception for a bond that is already funded in the bank and floated against that money.
But the state doesn't have to build the road right? Theoretically the state could say "we don't have the money to maintain this super road and therefore aren't going to build it."
If that's the case, it most definitely NOT a mandate of any sort.
Even if receiving an earmark doesn't help much, allowing them still allows legislation to pass more easily.
Quote from: 1 on March 03, 2021, 12:19:39 PM
Even if receiving an earmark doesn't help much, allowing them still allows legislation to pass more easily.
It's silly. It's the equivalent of playing poker with useless chips.
Something that has not been brought up about earmarks but should be: during their past use, they were *NOT* additional money...those earmarks came out of a given state's Federal highway allotment.
So if a state was normally getting $X in annual FHWA funding but had $Y in earmarks designated in the legislation, it was not a case of $X + $Y. Instead, what the state had to spend was $X - $Y.
This is why, as Rothman noted upthread, the states would groan at earmarks.
Quote from: froggie on March 03, 2021, 12:53:42 PM
Something that has not been brought up about earmarks but should be: during their past use, they were *NOT* additional money...those earmarks came out of a given state's Federal highway allotment.
So if a state was normally getting $X in annual FHWA funding but had $Y in earmarks designated in the legislation, it was not a case of $X + $Y. Instead, what the state had to spend was $X - $Y.
This is why, as Rothman noted upthread, the states would groan at earmarks.
Gotcha. Was not aware of that.
Quote from: froggie on March 03, 2021, 12:53:42 PM
Something that has not been brought up about earmarks but should be: during their past use, they were *NOT* additional money...those earmarks came out of a given state's Federal highway allotment.
So if a state was normally getting $X in annual FHWA funding but had $Y in earmarks designated in the legislation, it was not a case of $X + $Y. Instead, what the state had to spend was $X - $Y.
This is why, as Rothman noted upthread, the states would groan at earmarks.
Not sure if this is totally true. Earmarks certainly came with their own FHWA program codes depending upon their type.
You may be thinking about earmarks that hit a State's obligation limitation (OL now, but the old OA abbreviation has stuck like MA 128...). Now that is true that some do. Others don't. It's all dependent upon the legislation and is almost impossible to untangle without access to FMIS. Still, a State can decide which FFY an earmark can hit im and delay it unless it came with an expiration date (some do, some don't).
But in terms of a State's appropriations of their actual fund sources (NHPP, CMAQ, HSIP, STBG (STP), TAP (TEP), etc.), earmarks do not affect them, especially now that proportions have been based upon previous appropriations rather than the old federal formulas that were more data-driven.
Quote from: froggie on March 03, 2021, 12:53:42 PM
Something that has not been brought up about earmarks but should be: during their past use, they were *NOT* additional money...those earmarks came out of a given state's Federal highway allotment.
So if a state was normally getting $X in annual FHWA funding but had $Y in earmarks designated in the legislation, it was not a case of $X + $Y. Instead, what the state had to spend was $X - $Y.
This is why, as Rothman noted upthread, the states would groan at earmarks.
Then why do states pursue federal funding that is specifically allocated for certain projects?
Quote from: hbelkins on March 03, 2021, 06:36:17 PM
Quote from: froggie on March 03, 2021, 12:53:42 PM
Something that has not been brought up about earmarks but should be: during their past use, they were *NOT* additional money...those earmarks came out of a given state's Federal highway allotment.
So if a state was normally getting $X in annual FHWA funding but had $Y in earmarks designated in the legislation, it was not a case of $X + $Y. Instead, what the state had to spend was $X - $Y.
This is why, as Rothman noted upthread, the states would groan at earmarks.
Then why do states pursue federal funding that is specifically allocated for certain projects?
Political pressure from within the State is a key reason. It's a whole stupid cycle. Somebody wants a project, State doesn't have the money, Congress rep gets an earmark for a tenth of the cost, project isn't done anyway (over 50% of the time).
Quote from: RothmanYou may be thinking about earmarks that hit a State's obligation limitation
Yes, this is what I was thinking of...
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 03, 2021, 12:46:16 AM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on March 02, 2021, 07:17:33 AM
This is bad news for the country and will lead to future unfunded mandates and unfunded earmarks. Such a waste of taxpayer money.
Hey look, it's the only post you ever make.
That's not true. Sometimes he resurrects decade old threads.
Quote from: Takumi on March 03, 2021, 09:41:34 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 03, 2021, 12:46:16 AM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on March 02, 2021, 07:17:33 AM
This is bad news for the country and will lead to future unfunded mandates and unfunded earmarks. Such a waste of taxpayer money.
Hey look, it's the only post you ever make.
That's not true. Sometimes he resurrects decade old threads.
So what is good about an earmark?
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on March 02, 2021, 07:17:33 AM
unfunded earmarks
That doesn't make any sense. An earmark is an allocation of funds. So how can an earmark be unfunded?
Quote from: hbelkins on March 04, 2021, 10:18:52 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on March 02, 2021, 07:17:33 AM
unfunded earmarks
That doesn't make any sense. An earmark is an allocation of funds. So how can an earmark be unfunded?
Earmarks can be "funded" out of Federal money the state is already getting. "Unfunded" means, I guess, that the earmark doesn't come with any new money.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on March 04, 2021, 07:38:57 AM
Quote from: Takumi on March 03, 2021, 09:41:34 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 03, 2021, 12:46:16 AM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on March 02, 2021, 07:17:33 AM
This is bad news for the country and will lead to future unfunded mandates and unfunded earmarks. Such a waste of taxpayer money.
Hey look, it's the only post you ever make.
That's not true. Sometimes he resurrects decade old threads.
So what is good about an earmark?
Quote from: triplemultiplex on March 02, 2021, 12:57:39 PM
Someone on here in another thread was saying how the horse trading over earmarks had the effect of forcing these frickin' Congresspeople to work with each other on stuff. Yes it was vulnerable to abuse, but it did incentivize folks to talk to each other and hammer it out. Otherwise, what's the motivation to stick one's neck out on something when there's nothing in it for 'my' district? All cooperation does in the present scheme is give a more radical primary opponent a cudgel to beat you with. At least with the earmark, you can point to the new bypass or whatever as the 'reward' for going along with the other side on something.
Quote from: hbelkins on March 02, 2021, 11:24:50 PM
I fully support earmarks -- the designation by the legislature for a specific amount of money to go to a specific project. The representative from the 99th District of Alanland knows more about what that district needs than do the bureaucrats in the capital city.
Quote from: hbelkins on March 04, 2021, 10:18:52 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on March 02, 2021, 07:17:33 AM
unfunded earmarks
That doesn't make any sense. An earmark is an allocation of funds. So how can an earmark be unfunded?
The earmark could be earmarked but not funded.
Quote from: oscar on March 04, 2021, 10:34:37 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on March 04, 2021, 10:18:52 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on March 02, 2021, 07:17:33 AM
unfunded earmarks
That doesn't make any sense. An earmark is an allocation of funds. So how can an earmark be unfunded?
Earmarks can be "funded" out of Federal money the state is already getting. "Unfunded" means, I guess, that the earmark doesn't come with any new money.
I wonder if this is true. NY certainly hasn't had an earmark that setaside or carved out any normal FHWA program code (actual appropriation) since I've been at NYSDOT.
Obligation limitation -- what froggie and I were discussing -- is not money, however. Obligation limitation is simply an annual cap on how much federal funding you can actually obligate in a federal fiscal year. And obligation should not be mixed up with authorization, since you can authorize up to three years of your obligation limitation through "advance construction" (a step before actual obligation when bills start coming in). And earmarks either come with their own obligation limitation or don't, but have come with their own fund sources since I've been at NYSDOT (and for a significant number of years prior).
To me, an unfunded earmark is one that doesn't cover the cost of the intended project. Like I've said, a lot of them cover a very slim slice of the cost. It's like you ask your Representative for a dollar and he gets you 10 cents. You don't have the rest, you can't get the rest (that's why you asked), and so you can't buy what you wanted to buy.
That all said, I feel like people aren't understanding the complexities and nuances of federal funding of transportation. I mean, people understand that it's also a reimbursement program, right? That states have to first instance their own funds before the federal funding even comes in (in over 90% of the funding, anyway?)?
Quote from: Rothman on March 05, 2021, 07:31:21 AM
To me, an unfunded earmark is one that doesn't cover the cost of the intended project. Like I've said, a lot of them cover a very slim slice of the cost. It's like you ask your Representative for a dollar and he gets you 10 cents. You don't have the rest, you can't get the rest (that's why you asked), and so you can't buy what you wanted to buy.
If I'm understanding this right, in a situation like that nothing is obligating the state to pony up the other 90 cents to pay for whatever project, right? Those funds would just sit there unused, nothing gets built, and it's as if nothing ever happened...except your representative might try to use it as a talking point when re-election time rolls around.
As for the entire concept of earmarks: I'm totally fine with them. Sure they might lead to a little bit of unnecessary spending, but having them allows our legislators to work on compromises as some posters mentioned near the beginning of this thread. In fact I would argue the current earmark ban is probably the biggest contributing factor to the ever-more-toxic political climate in the US today.
My experience with earmarks is that they rarely made a difference in what was or wasn't built. Either they were the icing on a cake that had already been baked, or a seed planted in barren soil that had little chance of growing. On the other hand, I am generally happy with competitive funding programs like TIGER/BUILD and INFRA that leverage substantial federal funds for completing a project when the locals or the state have done most of the heavy lifting and made a financial commitment, and the grant makes it possible to get it built. Since only a fraction of the projects that apply get selected, I see little fluff in the competitive programs and they usually have a tangible benefit for the cost.
Heh. Just had a fun time with a BUILD grant where the municipality failed to recognize that the funding was 50/50 instead of the usual 80/20.
The recent kibosh on BUILD as a spiteful last act of the last federal administration was a godsend to them. Too bad I believe the current administration is reversing it. :D