Since Democrats took control of Congress in January, the news has continued to be bad for the Bush Administration and GOP.
The pendulum is bound to swing eventually, and the past few days have been bad ones for the Democrats.
Remember Rep. Tom Udall, D-N.M., touting his vote in January for new ethics rules designed to “make this Congress the most ethical Congress in history?” One of those new rules required the clear identification of earmarks – requests by lawmakers for funding for projects in their districts – in time for lawmakers to debate their merits.
Such earmarks are negotiating tools that many say lead to corruption. A lawmaker will often vote for a bill he opposes if funding for a project in his district is slipped into it. Critics say billions of dollars are wasted on unnecessary projects as a result.
The openness that was promised by Democrats, and that their new rules require, won’t happen this year.
Rep. David Obey, D-Wis. and chair of the powerful appropriations committee, has decided that earmarks won’t be added to spending bills until the fall, when it’s too late for a thorough debate on their merits. That, he told the Associated Press, is because committee members and staffers haven’t had time to fully review the 36,000 requests that have come in.
I guess the question, then, is whether House Democrats promised the moon in January to make headlines when delivering the moon wasn’t possible, or are now backtracking for unethical reasons.
All I know is this: Lawmakers count on securing earmarks for projects in their districts as a way to earn support for re-election. It’s the argument many New Mexico Democrats make for why they support Sen. Pete Domenici even though he’s a Republican.
The secrecy surrounding earmarks makes elections about who can bring home the beef instead of policy. It’s a big reason why incumbent members of Congress almost never lose re-election battles.
One thing is certain: Democrats bashed Republicans for their approach to earmarks, and are now using the same tactics they criticized. Obey, according to the Associated Press, has promised to cut earmarks in half this year from the approximately $19 billion they cost in 2005.
The biggest problem with the secrecy is that the earmarks could be used as political weapons instead of being spent appropriately. Democrats in close re-election contests in 2008 could get lots of money, while Republicans like Heather Wilson of
The public won’t know until it’s too late whether that’s the intention of House Democrats.
I’ve been unable today to reach the spokeswoman for Udall, a member of the appropriations committee.
There’s another bad-news item for House Democrats. Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., was indicted today on charges of racketeering, money laundering and soliciting more than $400,000 in bribes related to his attempt to broker business deals in
Not that we didn’t already know this, but