Neff Zone Column -- March 14, 2009

Print Edition: March 14, 2009

SPENDING AND EARMARKS

I’ve about had it with all the pontificating coming out of Washington D.C. The Democrats are convinced they are saving us from ourselves and the Republicans, after orchestrating the eight biggest borrow-and-spend years in American history, are (laughably) now trying to lecture us about restraint. Theories fly, fingers point, and only one thing is becoming crystal clear. When it comes to spending, our legislators are all peas in the same pod.

The facts bear this out. According to a report by McClatchy Newspapers, both parties are addicted to big government. "The basic difference between Democrats and Republicans in recent decades is which aspect of government spending they prefer," says Steven Schier of Carleton College in Minnesota. "With Republicans it’s defense and with Democrats it’s education, the environment and health care."

To prove its assertion, the McClatchy report compared spending under Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush. Under Reagan, government spending increased 69% and the size of government as a share of total economic production was 21.2%. Under Clinton spending increased 32% and the production number was 18.5%. The numbers for Bush were 68% and 22%. By comparison, assuming the spending forecasts for Barack Obama are correct, under him the government share of total economic production will be 22% in 2009. Two Republicans, two Democrats, four big spenders. Pretty tough for either party to play ‘holier than thou,’ eh?

Perhaps nothing shows the real stripes of our big spending legislators more starkly than earmarks, those spending add-ons to budget bills. When it comes to these, our legislators have no problem speaking out of both sides of their mouths.

It should be noted here that I’ve railed against earmarks in this column before. My position is simple: If an earmark is a worthy expenditure it should be introduced as a separate bill and then approved or denied according to its own merits, not tacked on to another bill so it can be slipped through in the middle of the night.

Says Roland S. Martin writing on CNN.Politics.com: "Democrats love earmarks. Republicans love earmarks. Liberals don’t have a problem with them. Conservatives may talk fiscal responsibility, but it’s OK as long as those earmarks come their way."

Proof of this is happening right now with the huge spending bill now in Congress. Taxpayers for Common Sense lists 8,570 earmarks worth $7.7 billion in the package. Of the top five senators and top five House members tacking on those earmarks, six are Democrats requesting $374.9 million and four are Republicans requesting $347.6 million.

The poster child for being two-faced has to be Republican Richard Shelby of Alabama. You might recognize Shelby as the guy who would like to see the Big Three automakers go bankrupt and the state of Michigan become a pile of rubble. Last year our pal Shelby said: "We don't need government - governmental subsidies for manufacturing in this country. It's the French model, it's the wrong road. We will pay for it. The average American taxpayer is going to pay dearly for this…"

Of course, at the same time foreign-owned auto manufacturers in Alabama received approximately $788 million in government subsidies including taxpayer funded property and sales tax exemptions, income tax credits, infrastructure aid, land discounts, and training grants.

In 2008, this "fiscal conservative" sponsored 222 earmarks with a price tag of $647.5 million. In the current 2009 spending bill, Shelby is the second highest requestor in the Senate, sponsoring 64 earmarks all by himself to the tune of $114.5 million and 125 all told (with other sponsors) for a grand total of $219.5 million.

About this, Shelby says: "I believe the people of Alabama elected me to represent their interests in Washington and I am willing to defend any funding or project I have secured for Alabama. I firmly believe that elected officials, not bureaucrats, should be stewards of taxpayer dollars." Oh, really? Gee, I wonder if he can spell h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e.

Now that everyone reading this is angry with me and is formulating their "ya, but…" retorts because I’ve insulted their political party or ideological stance, let me tell you what would go a long way toward changing things.

All I want is a simple explanation. The key word here is "simple." If you, as a Senator, Representative, cabinet member, or President can make a logical case for a spending proposal in 15 minutes or less, then you have a chance to garner my support. If it takes longer than 15 minutes to explain then you really don’t have a clear enough idea of what you want to do with the money. Explain to me in 15 minutes why AIG is too big to fail. Explain to me how we can have $25 billion unaccounted for in Iraq but can’t find the same amount to save the domestic auto industry. Explain to me, Senator Shelby, why your state needs the largest earmark in the omnibus spending bill, a cool $30 million for the University of Alabama for a project described as "an interdisciplinary science and engineering teaching and research corridor." If you can’t make your case, you don’t get the dough.

Can this train called the United States be kept on the tracks or is a wreck inevitable? I don’t know the answer to that, but I do know that each and every one of us has to keep pulling the cord of the warning whistle. If we make enough noise then someone will eventually listen. Let’s hope it’s in time.

Jim Neff is a local columnist. Comments to neffzone@gmail.com. Read Neff Zone columns online at www.neffzone.com/cadillacnews.