Editorial: Put spotlight on earmarks

Sunday, Feb. 5, 2006 | 12:30 p.m.

Is it wrong for the nation's taxpayers to pay for local projects, such as a fairground in Pahrump, a program to curb underaged drinking in Henderson, a 15-mile trail in northwestern Nevada, restoration of Walker Lake in Mineral County, widening of U.S. 95 in Las Vegas and a proposed veterans home and clinic in North Las Vegas?

These are some of the projects receiving funding from the roughly $1 billion that has been secured from the federal budget over the past two years by Nevada's congressional delegation. Would any Nevadan want to return this money, and forsake all of the infrastructure projects and jobs that are being provided, owing to congressional earmarks?

As Congress seeks to reform itself in light of the Republican scandal involving convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff, much attention is being given to the power that members of Congress have to "earmark" funds for projects back home. The criticism revolves around the extent to which earmarking has grown over the past decade. Critics say earmarking at today's pace is vastly inflating the federal budget and overly empowering members of Congress, making them susceptible to the entreaties of unscrupulous lobbyists.

A column in the Wall Street Journal last month pointed out one problem of undisciplined earmarking: "In Louisiana, the Army Corps of Engineers spent $1.9 billion between 2000 and 2005, more than 80 percent of which was earmarked. Less than 4 percent of the total was spent on protecting levees, while over a third of the money went to building a new lock on an unused canal. Then along came Hurricane Katrina."

Republicans and Democrats alike make heavy use of earmarks, and use them during election seasons to demonstrate to the voters how effective they have been. We do not object to earmarks, as localities often have legitimate projects that are impossible to fund with limited local tax money.

But we do believe reform is needed. Today, earmarks are often sneaked into funding bills at the last minute during Senate-House conference committees, providing no chance for debate on their priority. This practice should be banned. Earmarks should be introduced openly in House and Senate committees, and not later when no one is looking. Full and early disclosure, which affords the opportunity for public debate, would go a long way toward ending the scandals surrounding earmarks.