Earmarks Maybe Coming Back!

[Avalanchez71]

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?

[hbelkins]

unfunded earmarks

That doesn't make any sense. An earmark is an allocation of funds. So how can an earmark be unfunded?

[oscar]

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.

[Scott5114]

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?

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.

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.

[Avalanchez71]

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.

[Rothman]

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?)?

[US 89]

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.

[Rick Powell]

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.

[Rothman]

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.