Betsy's Page

Friday, January 09, 2009

It depends what your definition of "earmark" is

President-elect Obama has vowed that there will be no earmarks in his proposed stimulus plan. That might be a tough thing to do since it will have to go through a Congress full of politicians who want to get some federal largesse for their communities. Perhaps the way that Obama will accomplish this is by coming up with his own definition of what an earmark is. As Jake Tapper notes, Obama was very careful in how he phrased his promise.
"We are going to ban all earmarks," President-elect Obama pledged today after a meeting with his economic team, discussing the multibillion dollar stimulus package.

Mr. Obama made the promise carefully -- his definition of earmarks was "the process by which individual members insert pet projects without review."
In fact, most items that are considered earmarks have passed some review somewhere. Even the Bridge to Nowhere was planned by Alaska officials and reviewed several times at that level. So, according to Obama's definition, that notorious example of an earmark would not be an earmark. Think about how congressmen come up with the earmarks that they submit into appropriations. They don't make up the project out of whole cloth. Someone or some agency in their state wants the project and probably it has gone into the planning and review stage back home. Then they approach the congressman with the idea of funding their museum, bike path or sports stadium. If you browse the OMB list of earmarks from 2008 for example, it's clear that these are projects that have been in the works for a while and now seek federal funding. Would that count as review? Who knows?

Obama is very assertive about his definition of earmarks, but his is a bit different from the official definition as used by the OMB.
"Let me repeat what I said about that: We will ban all earmarks in the recovery package," said Mr. Obama. "And I describe earmarks as the process by which individual members insert pet projects without review. So what I'm saying is, we're not having earmarks in the recovery package, period. I was describing what earmarks are."
It sounds as if he's talking about a level of review before the project is inserted into the bill. But the OMB defines earmarks differently.
OMB defines earmarks as funds provided by the Congress for projects or programs where the congressional direction (in bill or report language) circumvents Executive Branch merit-based or competitive allocation processes, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the Executive Branch to manage critical aspects of the funds allocation process.
In other words, when the congressional bill or report tells an agency specifically how to spend money rather than having the responsible agency of the Executive Branch go through normal competitive procedures to allocate the spending. So if Congress passes a transportation bill with money to build bridges, the Transportation Department has a merit-based procedure to determine which projects are the most necessary. An earmark, however, would guide DOT to build a specific bridge, in Alaska perhaps, and so avoid a merit-based study that might determine that that was not the best use of DOT funds.

By using a different definition, Congress and Obama can have their cake and eat it too. They can thump their chests and say that there are no earmarks in their stimulus bill yet meanwhile instruct the Executive departments to spend money on specific projects that the politicians have already earmarked.

If we're going to have some huge stimulus bill that spends billions on infrastructure or aid to education or money for green technology or whatever they decide to throw money at, wouldn't it be better to have that determined by a neutral agency that can look at all such proposals and choose the ones that will best serve the purpose of stimulating the economy? Choosing projects that politicians submit because somebody back in their state has pulled a list of "shovel-ready" projects out of a file drawer somewhere is just a fancy way of filling the bill with earmarks.

So next time Obama makes himself available for questions about his ideas for a stimulus package, I hope someone gets him to clarify who will be doing the "review" he is so adamant be done. Will it be the states and politicians requesting the money or will there be some neutral agency that can better judge which projects will provide the most bang for the buck?
Labels: Congress, President Obama

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 5:57 AM 2 comments

Comments:

President-elect Obama has vowed that there will be no earmarks in his proposed stimulus plan. That might be a tough thing to do since it will have to go through a Congress full of politicians who want to get some federal largesse for their communities. Perhaps the way that Obama will accomplish this is by coming up with his own definition of what an earmark is. As Jake Tapper notes, Obama was very careful in how he phrased his promise.

"We are going to ban all earmarks," President-elect Obama pledged today after a meeting with his economic team, discussing the multibillion dollar stimulus package.

Mr. Obama made the promise carefully -- his definition of earmarks was "the process by which individual members insert pet projects without review."

In fact, most items that are considered earmarks have passed some review somewhere. Even the Bridge to Nowhere was planned by Alaska officials and reviewed several times at that level. So, according to Obama's definition, that notorious example of an earmark would not be an earmark. Think about how congressmen come up with the earmarks that they submit into appropriations. They don't make up the project out of whole cloth. Someone or some agency in their state wants the project and probably it has gone into the planning and review stage back home. Then they approach the congressman with the idea of funding their museum, bike path or sports stadium. If you browse the OMB list of earmarks from 2008 for example, it's clear that these are projects that have been in the works for a while and now seek federal funding. Would that count as review? Who knows?

Obama is very assertive about his definition of earmarks, but his is a bit different from the official definition as used by the OMB.

"Let me repeat what I said about that: We will ban all earmarks in the recovery package," said Mr. Obama. "And I describe earmarks as the process by which individual members insert pet projects without review. So what I'm saying is, we're not having earmarks in the recovery package, period. I was describing what earmarks are."

It sounds as if he's talking about a level of review before the project is inserted into the bill. But the OMB defines earmarks differently.

OMB defines earmarks as funds provided by the Congress for projects or programs where the congressional direction (in bill or report language) circumvents Executive Branch merit-based or competitive allocation processes, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the Executive Branch to manage critical aspects of the funds allocation process.

In other words, when the congressional bill or report tells an agency specifically how to spend money rather than having the responsible agency of the Executive Branch go through normal competitive procedures to allocate the spending. So if Congress passes a transportation bill with money to build bridges, the Transportation Department has a merit-based procedure to determine which projects are the most necessary. An earmark, however, would guide DOT to build a specific bridge, in Alaska perhaps, and so avoid a merit-based study that might determine that that was not the best use of DOT funds.

By using a different definition, Congress and Obama can have their cake and eat it too. They can thump their chests and say that there are no earmarks in their stimulus bill yet meanwhile instruct the Executive departments to spend money on specific projects that the politicians have already earmarked.

If we're going to have some huge stimulus bill that spends billions on infrastructure or aid to education or money for green technology or whatever they decide to throw money at, wouldn't it be better to have that determined by a neutral agency that can look at all such proposals and choose the ones that will best serve the purpose of stimulating the economy? Choosing projects that politicians submit because somebody back in their state has pulled a list of "shovel-ready" projects out of a file drawer somewhere is just a fancy way of filling the bill with earmarks.

So next time Obama makes himself available for questions about his ideas for a stimulus package, I hope someone gets him to clarify who will be doing the "review" he is so adamant be done. Will it be the states and politicians requesting the money or will there be some neutral agency that can better judge which projects will provide the most bang for the buck?

Labels: Congress, President Obama

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 5:57 AM 2 comments

Comments:

A lot of this subterfuge stems from an confusion, as noted, as to where the money comes from. Most people, and I suspect many in the press, assume earmarks are additional spendng. Rather than simply redirecting spending of money already appropriated. This could increase the deficit if Congress has to return to that bill with supplemental appropriations because some needed and approved project now is not funded.

And surprisingly Congress can actually get it right sometimes else the Navy would still have smooth bore cannons and sailing ships and our early warning systems would consist of guys inside huts on the coast with binoculars and silhouette charts scanning for approaching enemy bombers.

# posted by

Pat Patterson : 10:33 AM

With such a large proportion of Obama's visible cabinet (and who knows how much of the invisible bureaucracy) composed of Clinton retreads, it isn't surprising that ..."It depends on what the meaning of the word '[earmarks]' is.", has already become part of his mantra. After all, Obama began "reformulating" his message even during the campaign. Remember how "creating 2 million jobs" because "saving and creating 2 million jobs"?

# posted by

Bachbone : 4:55 PM

The truth about Avesil

Cheap Hosting

Atlanta Bankruptcy Attorney

Dallas Bankruptcy Attorney

Wikio

Get exclusive travel deals and book discount cheap flights

Online Bachelors Degree

Friday, January 09, 2009

It depends what your definition of "earmark" is

		Betsy's Page

HOME Betsy neither necessarily uses, nor endorses, the products advertised on this site. The truth about Avesil Cheap Hosting Atlanta Bankruptcy Attorney Dallas Bankruptcy Attorney Wikio Get exclusive travel deals and book discount cheap flights Online Bachelors Degree Comments from an AP history and government teacher in Raleigh, NC. e-mail betsynewmark AT gmail.com Commissions earned from selling items through Amazon will go towards buying materials for my classes. Thank you. Site Feed		Friday, January 09, 2009 It depends what your definition of "earmark" is President-elect Obama has vowed that there will be no earmarks in his proposed stimulus plan. That might be a tough thing to do since it will have to go through a Congress full of politicians who want to get some federal largesse for their communities. Perhaps the way that Obama will accomplish this is by coming up with his own definition of what an earmark is. As Jake Tapper notes, Obama was very careful in how he phrased his promise. "We are going to ban all earmarks," President-elect Obama pledged today after a meeting with his economic team, discussing the multibillion dollar stimulus package. Mr. Obama made the promise carefully -- his definition of earmarks was "the process by which individual members insert pet projects without review." In fact, most items that are considered earmarks have passed some review somewhere. Even the Bridge to Nowhere was planned by Alaska officials and reviewed several times at that level. So, according to Obama's definition, that notorious example of an earmark would not be an earmark. Think about how congressmen come up with the earmarks that they submit into appropriations. They don't make up the project out of whole cloth. Someone or some agency in their state wants the project and probably it has gone into the planning and review stage back home. Then they approach the congressman with the idea of funding their museum, bike path or sports stadium. If you browse the OMB list of earmarks from 2008 for example, it's clear that these are projects that have been in the works for a while and now seek federal funding. Would that count as review? Who knows? Obama is very assertive about his definition of earmarks, but his is a bit different from the official definition as used by the OMB. "Let me repeat what I said about that: We will ban all earmarks in the recovery package," said Mr. Obama. "And I describe earmarks as the process by which individual members insert pet projects without review. So what I'm saying is, we're not having earmarks in the recovery package, period. I was describing what earmarks are." It sounds as if he's talking about a level of review before the project is inserted into the bill. But the OMB defines earmarks differently. OMB defines earmarks as funds provided by the Congress for projects or programs where the congressional direction (in bill or report language) circumvents Executive Branch merit-based or competitive allocation processes, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the Executive Branch to manage critical aspects of the funds allocation process. In other words, when the congressional bill or report tells an agency specifically how to spend money rather than having the responsible agency of the Executive Branch go through normal competitive procedures to allocate the spending. So if Congress passes a transportation bill with money to build bridges, the Transportation Department has a merit-based procedure to determine which projects are the most necessary. An earmark, however, would guide DOT to build a specific bridge, in Alaska perhaps, and so avoid a merit-based study that might determine that that was not the best use of DOT funds. By using a different definition, Congress and Obama can have their cake and eat it too. They can thump their chests and say that there are no earmarks in their stimulus bill yet meanwhile instruct the Executive departments to spend money on specific projects that the politicians have already earmarked. If we're going to have some huge stimulus bill that spends billions on infrastructure or aid to education or money for green technology or whatever they decide to throw money at, wouldn't it be better to have that determined by a neutral agency that can look at all such proposals and choose the ones that will best serve the purpose of stimulating the economy? Choosing projects that politicians submit because somebody back in their state has pulled a list of "shovel-ready" projects out of a file drawer somewhere is just a fancy way of filling the bill with earmarks. So next time Obama makes himself available for questions about his ideas for a stimulus package, I hope someone gets him to clarify who will be doing the "review" he is so adamant be done. Will it be the states and politicians requesting the money or will there be some neutral agency that can better judge which projects will provide the most bang for the buck? Labels: Congress, President Obama posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 5:57 AM 2 comments Comments: President-elect Obama has vowed that there will be no earmarks in his proposed stimulus plan. That might be a tough thing to do since it will have to go through a Congress full of politicians who want to get some federal largesse for their communities. Perhaps the way that Obama will accomplish this is by coming up with his own definition of what an earmark is. As Jake Tapper notes, Obama was very careful in how he phrased his promise. "We are going to ban all earmarks," President-elect Obama pledged today after a meeting with his economic team, discussing the multibillion dollar stimulus package. Mr. Obama made the promise carefully -- his definition of earmarks was "the process by which individual members insert pet projects without review." In fact, most items that are considered earmarks have passed some review somewhere. Even the Bridge to Nowhere was planned by Alaska officials and reviewed several times at that level. So, according to Obama's definition, that notorious example of an earmark would not be an earmark. Think about how congressmen come up with the earmarks that they submit into appropriations. They don't make up the project out of whole cloth. Someone or some agency in their state wants the project and probably it has gone into the planning and review stage back home. Then they approach the congressman with the idea of funding their museum, bike path or sports stadium. If you browse the OMB list of earmarks from 2008 for example, it's clear that these are projects that have been in the works for a while and now seek federal funding. Would that count as review? Who knows? Obama is very assertive about his definition of earmarks, but his is a bit different from the official definition as used by the OMB. "Let me repeat what I said about that: We will ban all earmarks in the recovery package," said Mr. Obama. "And I describe earmarks as the process by which individual members insert pet projects without review. So what I'm saying is, we're not having earmarks in the recovery package, period. I was describing what earmarks are." It sounds as if he's talking about a level of review before the project is inserted into the bill. But the OMB defines earmarks differently. OMB defines earmarks as funds provided by the Congress for projects or programs where the congressional direction (in bill or report language) circumvents Executive Branch merit-based or competitive allocation processes, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the Executive Branch to manage critical aspects of the funds allocation process. In other words, when the congressional bill or report tells an agency specifically how to spend money rather than having the responsible agency of the Executive Branch go through normal competitive procedures to allocate the spending. So if Congress passes a transportation bill with money to build bridges, the Transportation Department has a merit-based procedure to determine which projects are the most necessary. An earmark, however, would guide DOT to build a specific bridge, in Alaska perhaps, and so avoid a merit-based study that might determine that that was not the best use of DOT funds. By using a different definition, Congress and Obama can have their cake and eat it too. They can thump their chests and say that there are no earmarks in their stimulus bill yet meanwhile instruct the Executive departments to spend money on specific projects that the politicians have already earmarked. If we're going to have some huge stimulus bill that spends billions on infrastructure or aid to education or money for green technology or whatever they decide to throw money at, wouldn't it be better to have that determined by a neutral agency that can look at all such proposals and choose the ones that will best serve the purpose of stimulating the economy? Choosing projects that politicians submit because somebody back in their state has pulled a list of "shovel-ready" projects out of a file drawer somewhere is just a fancy way of filling the bill with earmarks. So next time Obama makes himself available for questions about his ideas for a stimulus package, I hope someone gets him to clarify who will be doing the "review" he is so adamant be done. Will it be the states and politicians requesting the money or will there be some neutral agency that can better judge which projects will provide the most bang for the buck? Labels: Congress, President Obama posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 5:57 AM 2 comments Comments: A lot of this subterfuge stems from an confusion, as noted, as to where the money comes from. Most people, and I suspect many in the press, assume earmarks are additional spendng. Rather than simply redirecting spending of money already appropriated. This could increase the deficit if Congress has to return to that bill with supplemental appropriations because some needed and approved project now is not funded. And surprisingly Congress can actually get it right sometimes else the Navy would still have smooth bore cannons and sailing ships and our early warning systems would consist of guys inside huts on the coast with binoculars and silhouette charts scanning for approaching enemy bombers. # posted by Pat Patterson : 10:33 AM With such a large proportion of Obama's visible cabinet (and who knows how much of the invisible bureaucracy) composed of Clinton retreads, it isn't surprising that ..."It depends on what the meaning of the word '[earmarks]' is.", has already become part of his mantra. After all, Obama began "reformulating" his message even during the campaign. Remember how "creating 2 million jobs" because "saving and creating 2 million jobs"? # posted by Bachbone : 4:55 PM Post a Comment