Remember "earmarks," aka "porkbarrel spending," officially known as "member-directed spending"? They've been a favorite target of both Democratic and Republican deficit peacocks to point out "wasteful spending" on the part of the other guy. Earmarks went out a decade ago with the tea party faction that took over the House in 2010. The Republican Party that came in was happy to give up on the spending projects in members' home states—one means of securing voter support—and trade them for massive tax cuts to the wealthy, a way to get much more lucrative help on reelection campaigns. The thing about earmarks, though, is that they can represent the best of what a member of Congress, either House or Senate, can do to represent their districts and states, to bring the largesse of the federal government home to build things, hire people, generate revenue. That's the argument Democratic Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut and Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont will make when they announce their intent to bring earmarks back in the next few weeks.
Those two are the chairs of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, and they argue that if properly limited, the practice of members writing spending bills for specific efforts back home is smart policy. In this Congress, the Democrats have insisted, earmarks will be transparent—that means who is requesting the money and who will get the money will be disclosed. Member-directed spending is also going to be limited to state and local governments as well as nonprofits that work to provide public support in quasi-government functions. That means for-profit institutions, private companies, and any entity that the member of Congress has a financial stake in will be off limits. The total amount in each spending bill that can be earmarked will also be limited.
