Transparency Isn’t Enough

The New York Times reports on the latest method legislators are using to mask wasteful spending — "soft earmarks."

With great fanfare, Congress adopted strict ethics rules last year requiring members to disclose when they steered federal money to pet projects. But it turns out lawmakers can still secretly direct billions of dollars to favored organizations by making vague requests rather than issuing explicit instructions to government agencies in committee reports and spending bills. That seeming courtesy is the difference between “soft earmarks” and the more insistent “hard earmarks.”

How much money is requested for any specific project? It is difficult to say, since price tags are not included with soft earmarks. Who is the sponsor? Unclear, unless the lawmaker later acknowledges it. Purpose of the spending? Usually not provided.

How to spot a soft earmark? Easy. The language is that of a respectful suggestion: A committee “endorses” or notes it “is aware” of deserving programs and “urges” or “recommends” that agencies finance them.

That was how taxpayer money was requested last year for a Christian broadcasting group to build a shortwave radio station in Madagascar, a program to save hawks in Haiti, efforts to fight agriculture pests in Maryland and an “international fertilizer” center in Alabama that assists farmers overseas.

A lot of people have talked up transparency as the way to put a damper on earmarks and other spending abuses. The idea seems to be that we don’t want to outlaw earmarks entirely, but instead force legislators to stand by the projects they fund. They’ll be less likely to throw money at something goofy if they have to answer for it, right?

Well, to an extent that’s true. But the problem with transparency laws is that politicians will inevitably find loopholes and use them to fund loopy projects in what amounts to back door earmarks. In a way, this process is even worse. From the NYT report:

“Soft earmarks are even more insidious than hard earmarks,” said Keith Ashdown, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense. “With hard earmarks, at least you know something about the amounts and recipients. With soft earmarks, everything is done in secret.”

The only way to get around this, it seems to me, is for legislators to pledge to avoid any and all types of earmarks entirely, full stop.