According to Roll Call, during a Democrat strategy session last week Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) broached the idea of suspending earmarks during the 2010 appropriations process. And even though the reasons cited were mostly political – this fiscal restraint would come as welcome relief to the average everyday American.
Earmarks have long been considered an emblem of Washington, DC corruption, waste and abuse. Earmark supporters will make such arguments as “the total amount of spending on earmarks is minimal,” or “why should we let bureaucrats spend federal dollars, when we know where the money should go.” But these desperate arguments miss the point. Earmarks are not only a classic sign of favoritism but they grease the wheels for ever higher levels of government spending.
Additionally, there are so many earmarks now (in 2009 there were estimated to be 11,914 for a total of over $20 billion) that abuse is bound to happen. Remember the “Bridge to Nowhere.”
In 2007 a similar effort was undertaken by a Republican majority. In that case the Republican majority refused to fund over 10,000 earmarks that were left over in FY 2007 appropriations bills from the previous year. This ended up being a one shot deal though as the FY 2008 earmark process continued with earmarks unabated. But this is a good idea whose time may have come again. This moratorium should also have backing from the Administration as President Obama has also been an advocate for reducing earmarks. Specifically, the President proposed that:
- The annual cost of earmarks should be no greater than $7.8 billion, the level they were at in 1994, when the Republicans took control of Congress; and
- Any earmark for a for-profit company should be subject to the same competitive bidding requirements as other federal contracts.
To a disgruntled, disillusioned, dispirited American populace a truly effective earmark moratorium would come as welcome relief. But it has to be legitimate and not just window dressing and more of the same. Some ideas to give it teeth include:
- A Practical Working Definition. As my colleague Ron Utt notes earmarks are a bit like pornography – you know it when you see it but it is hard to find a good definition. Earmarks are so widely used and abused that it is hard to get a firm plan for reduction when they can so easily be moved or re-named.
- Active Administration Support. In 2007 Members quickly found a way around the ban by calling and intimidating federal agency personnel into honoring the earmarks. To truly uphold any ban effectively President Obama needs to take a page from his predecessor. When President Bush found out that Members were circumventing the ban through federal agency intimidation he had his OMB Director Rob Portman issue a memorandum to heads of departments and agencies directing them not to honor such informal requests.
- They Should Be Joined by the Senate. A one-sided earmark moratorium will not achieve the goals of reducing any earmarks as House Members would just submit their requests to the Senators giving them more earmark credit to take. Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina has already called for the Senate to also take up the moratorium which would give a lot more credibility and effectiveness to this effort.
Earmark reform efforts have always been a tough sell in Congress. Members from both sides of the aisle like to be able to bring home dollars for the State or District. But the fundamental unfairness of earmarks has long stuck in the craw of the American people. Media reports indicate that Speaker Pelosi is considering a one year moratorium on earmarking. This would be a great first step and may be the beginning of bipartisan agreement on an issue that may restrain federal spending.
There are at least six key differences that need to be resolved before the House and Senate can cut a deal, in secret, to pass Obamacare. Maybe the most difficult issue to resolve is the issue of using federal tax dollars to fund abortion. It seems clear, from a reading of the House- and Senate-passed health care bills, that their positions on the federal funding of abortion are at odds and will be difficult to reconcile.
During the House debate, an amendment was added by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) (the Stupak Amendment) by a 240-194 vote that states the following: “No funds authorized or appropriated under this Act (or an Amendment made by this Act) may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage for abortion.” There are exceptions in this prohibition for the life of the mother, rape and incest. The prohibition specifically allows states to buy abortion coverage if they so choose, provided they do not use federal funds, any funds derived from federal subsidies under Obamacare, or any nonfederal funds needed to access another federal program. This is easy to understand language and reflects the annual funding rider on appropriations bills, commonly referred to as the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal tax dollars from funding abortion. This language was supported by pro-life groups and is widely considered very strong language protecting the taxpayers from funding abortions.
In the Senate, Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) offered an amendment (the Nelson Amendment) similar to the Stupak Amendment in the Senate. That Amendment was tabled (defeated) by a 54-45 vote. A vote in favor of the motion was a vote against the Nelson Amendment, therefore only 45 Senators supported a ban on the use of federal funds in Obamacare for abortion. A deal was struck later in the debate and put in Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-NV) “Manager’s Amendment.” The new language adopted in the Senate-passed Obamacare bill allows the creation of “Allocation Accounts” to pay for abortions.
Americans United for Life argues that it’s “the fact that the government will subsidize insurance plans that cover elective abortions. In departure from longstanding federal policy, section 1303(b)(1)(A) allows a ‘qualified health plan’ – one that participates in an Exchange and is available to individuals who receive tax credits to cover part of their insurance premiums – to include abortion coverage. Therefore, insurance plans that cover elective abortions will receive these federal subsidies.”
Here is how it works: the Senate version of Obamacare says that “an exchange shall be a governmental agency or non-profit entity that is set up by a State.” The Exchange “shall make available qualified health plans to qualified individuals and qualified employers.” Now, the federal government will subsidize private insurance plans through tax credits and subsidies to a state’s Exchange or non-profit entity. These health care plans are allowed to cover abortion, but through an accounting gimmick where an individual who wants abortion coverage will pay $12 extra for a plan.
Very simply, the House bill explicitly forbids federal funds from going to any plan that covers abortions, similar to the law governing the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan. The Stupak Amendment will require insurance companies to omit abortion coverage if they get federal monies. The Senate restrictions explicitly allow for abortion coverage in federally subsidized plans, under the pretext that people will have to pay an extra $12 dollars in non-federal monies for the coverage. Considering all the federal money that will be pouring into the system, $2.5 trillion over the first 10 years of implementation, to argue that no federal money will support or promote abortion under a government-run health care system defies logic. It seems clear that the House and Senate have a long way to go to reconcile their differing positions on abortion.