Earmarks Maybe Coming Back!

[ITB]

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

[Avalanchez71]

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.

[hotdogPi]

Earmarks were the only way the ACA got its required 60 votes. Earmarks will make it easier for legislation to pass.

[Max Rockatansky]

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?

[kphoger]

This ... will lead to future unfunded mandates and unfunded earmarks.

Earmarks will make it easier for legislation to pass.

Those two statements are not contradictory.

[triplemultiplex]

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.

[kphoger]

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.

The comment you're probably remembering specifically is this:

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.

[Rothman]

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.

[hbelkins]

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.

[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.

[Rothman]

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).

[I-39]

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.

[Avalanchez71]

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.

[Rothman]

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.

[Rothman]

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.

[SEWIGuy]

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. 

[hotdogPi]

Even if receiving an earmark doesn't help much, allowing them still allows legislation to pass more easily.

[Rothman]

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.

[froggie]

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.

[SEWIGuy]

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.

[Rothman]

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.

[hbelkins]

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?

[Rothman]

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).

[froggie]

You may be thinking about earmarks that hit a State's obligation limitation

Yes, this is what I was thinking of...

[Takumi]

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.