xtcian

what Kermie and moi have is private

3/4/09

My nephew Sean Patrick showed up just in time - at the end of yesterday's comment section - to elucidate the whole "earmark" spending kerfuffle for laymen like myself. I'll just go ahead and quote his whole statement. I don't mean to single out Schultz with this entry (Schultz himself is also a Tar Heel and does a killer solo to "All Along the Watchtower") but Sean P. was responding to him directly:

***
To clarify--Schultz is using confusing language here. There are two different spending bills at issue:

1. The stimulus bill, already signed in to law by Obama. This bill contained no earmarks. When Ian is referencing conservatives calling things earmarks that aren't, this is what he's referencing.

2. The FY 09 omnibus appropriations bill. Each year, the congress muss pass a bill to appropriate money to each executive agency so the federal government can stay up and running. When the bills for multiple federal agencies are rolled together, this is called an "omnibus" bill.

This funding appropriated in this bill runs through September '09, when the fiscal year ends. Last year, Congress and the White House could not agree on a new budget, so they passed a "continuing resolution," which keeps the federal government up and running at '08 levels for a short period of time.

The omnibus bill that is soon to end up on Obama's desk includes over 4,000 earmarks worth $7.7 Billion. This is what Schultz is referencing.

Schultz equates these two bills, which is confusing, because there are serious, but very different issues worth discussing in both.

The issue at hands seems to be whether earmarks are the problem, or non-stimulative spending?

If it's earmarks, the stimulus bill passes Schultz's test with flying colors (again, no earmarks in this bill). If it is non-stimulative spending, then each of the problematic expenditures that he lists should be debated on their own merits.

The purpose of a stimulus bill during bad economic times is to take the wasted economic potential of people who are sitting on their couches, unemployed, and make use of it, ideally for things that are probably worth doing anyways. Weatherizing federal buildings, for instance, is a great use of money. In order to complete the weatherization, a bunch of people have to be hired to install various systems that make buildings more energy efficient. Along with putting people back to work, this has the added benefit of reducing the federal government's energy bill and carbon footprint (both worthwhile goals, even in good economic times). It's also worth noting that these sorts of jobs aren't "government jobs," as the federal government is likely to hire outside contractors to do the installation.

To take another example, the Byrne-Jag assistance program provides federal grants to local police departments to assist with drug law enforcement. This money keeps thousands of cops in work nationwide: it's both a stimulative and useful program.

Now, there are certainly some provisions of the stimulus bill that are neither stimulative nor good ideas. These shouldn't have been in the bill. In Obama's defense, he lobbied to remove some of the provisions the GOP raised major concerns over (e.g. birth control, which he supports, but agrees was not likely stimulative).

As for the Omnibus bill, this issue isn't as easy as it sounds. If Obama vetoes the bill, either the federal government will shut down or congress will pass another continuing resolution to allow the government to at '08 levels. That's problematic, because circumstances have changed dramatically since early '08.

As schultz mentions, the earmarks in this legislation are from versions that passed last year. In order to remove them, Congress would have to restart the legislative process fro scratch in committee. Appropriations legislation is the most intricate and detailed thing that congress does--to start from scratch when we are already halfway through the fiscal year seems like an unacceptable delay.

Let's see what the appropriations legislation for FY2010 looks like before we condemn him prematurely. The only reason this legislation is on his desk is that Congress couldn't pass a bill that Bush would sign.

Lastly, what is intrinsically wrong with earmarks? Earmarking is just a method for appropriating money. Earmarking money for a really great after school program that keeps hundreds of kids out of trouble might be a good thing, and likewise money for a useless bridge could be a bad idea if it goes through the normal appropriations process. The earmarking process itself is just that--a particular mechanism for appropriating money. I don't see any explanation from Schultz as to why it's necessarily bad.

***

See, when you actually listen in class, and then deliver Iowa for Obama, you end up being as clever as my nephew. But one last thing... the "pig odor" research. Singling out any issue always makes that particular thing seem picayune and irresponsible, but this bill would actually help a lot of small communities that are rendered unlivable by the farms that employ them.

Sure, you like bacon, and perhaps a ham sandwich, but some town has to grow the pigs, and the pigs are going to defecate, and pretty soon, the quality of life plunges to "can barely fucking stand it" level. Ever driven I-5 to Northern California and passed through Vacaville? What if places like this became livable again? What if the methane released by cows, pigs and other farm animals became a source of energy for the farm? That's what this bill does.

Sean P. and I grew up in eastern Iowa, where the stench of local livestock pens and rendering factories would be so bad they'd cancel recess at school. "Pig odor research" may sound like pork, but that's only because you don't live where laws and sausages are made.

Sean P., me, Tessa and Lucy at the Inauguration

Posted by Ian Williams at March 4, 2009 11:37 PM