Presidents from Ronald Reagan to Barack Obama have railed against earmarks. Ronald Reagan himself vetoed a transportation bill that contained a mere 121 earmarks, complaining, "I haven't seen this much lard since I handed out blue ribbons at the Iowa State Fair."
By comparison, Congressman Don Young's 2005 Highway Transportation Bill included a record 6,371 earmarks. Mr. Young himself boasted that he "stuffed it like a turkey." While Mr. Young argues that he is defending Alaska, of the $14 billion in earmarks he has requested this year, there is little doubt that the majority of the money will be spent outside Alaska.
As part of an effort to "rein in out-of-control federal spending," Republicans have called for a one-year moratorium on earmarks. During this period, Republicans intend to work with Democrats to revise the rules by which appropriations are made to improve accountability and transparency. Mr. Young is one of three Republican congressmen to defy the ban.
In a Compass piece published April 1, Mr. Young defended his position by arguing that earmarks are good for Alaska and do not add to the federal deficit. Although Mr. Young has done his part to build Alaska over the past 30 years, his decision to oppose the Republican moratorium on earmarks fails to respond to the danger presented by the federal deficit, as well as the need to restore Alaska's seniority in the House. In the end, it will do more harm than good.
The problem with earmarks is twofold. First, the secrecy surrounding earmarks allows lobbyists and well-connected individuals to secure federal funding in exchange for favors -- namely, campaign contributions. Second, members of Congress use earmarks to influence other members to sign on to large spending measures -- such as the health care bill. That is why convicted felon and former lobbyist Jack Abramoff called the House Appropriations committee an "earmark favor factory." It is no coincidence that the growth of earmarks parallels the growth of federal spending. To say that earmarks don't add to the federal deficit is like a family that is maxed out on its credit cards saying that a vacation to Hawaii is in the budget so it doesn't affect the family finances.
While many earmarks are attacked as wasteful government "pork," I will be the first to acknowledge that not all earmarks are wasteful. Nevertheless, every organization -- be it a family, a church, a civic organization or a business -- recognizes that budgeting is a processes of ranking priorities and making choices. Do we buy a new car or pay for soccer for the children? Is this the year for a new snowmachine or a new washing machine? Each of us must live within our means.
Like every organization's, our nation's wants are never-ending. Ronald Reagan reportedly observed, "If the government is big enough to give you everything you want, it is big enough to take away everything you have." In the past 10 years we have gone from a $236 billion budget surplus to a $1.6 trillion deficit. It is time to change. If we don't, in approximately 12 years, interest on the national debt will approach $1 trillion and become the largest line item on the federal budget.
When will we as a nation begin to budget the way families and businesses must do? Reducing our deficit will not be easy. It will require that we make hard decisions to cut programs that benefit real people. How can we begin to address cutting entitlement spending and health care costs if we can't begin to change the way we spend money today? Mr. Young's position on earmarks reflects the policies of the past decade, when our nation could better afford these luxuries.
We need leadership like never before. Two years ago, fellow Republicans forced Mr. Young to resign his seniority positions. Today, Mr. Young is alienating his fellow Republicans -- the very people whose support he needs in order to regain Alaska's seniority. It is time to take our country and our state in a new direction.
Sheldon Fisher is a Republican candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives.
By SHELDON FISHER