By any other name

Wednesday, Dec. 29, 2010 | 2:01 a.m.

Republican leaders in Congress have been outspoken about earmarks, which they see as a sign of all that is wrong in Washington.

Fueled by the anti-government Tea Party movement, Republicans are using earmarks as part of their purported push to cut spending — never mind that earmarks make up a minuscule percentage of the federal budget. Republicans say earmarks are unseemly because they allow members of Congress to attach pork projects without a public hearing.

Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, the incoming speaker of the House, has said he would push for a ban on earmarks. But the dirty little secret that Boehner & Co. know is that their proposed ban on earmarks won’t stop them from getting money for their pet projects.

As The New York Times reported Tuesday, members of Congress can direct spending in other ways. For example, Republican Rep. Mark Kirk of Illinois, who just won a Senate seat, railed against the stimulus bill and has pledged not to use earmarks. Yet Kirk had no problem sending a letter to the Education Department asking for money for a local school district. The Education Department acted favorably, and it’s no wonder why — Kirk is a member of the powerful House Appropriations Committee.

A Kirk spokeswoman tried to defend him, saying he is against earmarks and he was just being “an advocate” for his constituents. That type of advocacy in Congress is known as “lettermarking.” Kirk was joined by several Republicans who opposed the stimulus bill yet tried to get money from it by sending letters to administration officials.

As we’ve noted before, the Republican hypocrisy on the issue is astounding. And writing letters isn’t the only way they can get around earmarks. There are some other well-known methods, the Times pointed out, including:

• “Phonemarking” is when lawmakers pick up the phone and call a federal agency, pleading their case for funding.

• A “soft earmark” is when a lawmaker makes a not-so-subtle suggestion during a hearing that an agency spend money on a pet project, or a member of a budget-writing committee increases an agency’s funding and then forcefully suggests money be spent in his state.

• An “undisclosed earmark,” as Steve Ellis of the nonpartisan advocacy group Taxpayers for Common Sense terms it, is when a member of Congress puts money in a spending bill for something a federal agency doesn’t want. Billions of dollars are spent that way each year.

Although the phone calls, letters and comments from lawmakers aren’t technically earmarks and they don’t necessarily guarantee funding, the agencies pay heed to what members of Congress want. And while earmarks are publicly disclosed, these things largely happen outside the view of the public.

As Ellis told the Times, “If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.”

This is just more proof of the Republicans’ shamelessness on the budget. They want to spend, but they don’t want to be seen spending. They blame others, yet they excuse themselves. Sounds like more politics-as-usual to us.