A ban on earmarks has closed the doors for otherwise unwise federal spending. This is said to have been ordered by President Obama in the $825 billion economic stimulus bill that is apt for voting. Until it becomes a law, no one yet knows what formulae may have been laid down on how funds so appropriated will be spent. Bottomline, it is presumably designed so that funneling money to pet projects will be a little bit difficult for lawmakers, interest groups, even lobbyists.
As we all know, only Congress provides such funds or earmarks for projects or programs based on allocation process largely being determined by the congressmen themselves thereby curtailing the ability of the Executive Branch to properly manage the funds.
The case of US and RP come from the same mold – our legislative traditions being carbon copy of the West. As defined, earmarks are funds under congressional direction since by tradition, they have become discretionary spending. Now, Obama appears set to make federal spending transparent such that there will be a system that will let the public track exactly where the stimulus money goes. Democrat lawmakers, it is said, even devised an elaborate oversight system that can review how such monies are spent.
In the Philippines, the same is true. Congressmen are always heard to say – they have no hand on how the money is being spent because precisely, a department or office is being designated as the implementing agency for every kind of project or program – not the congressional office itself. But on the ground, we know that congressmen actually do have a more than direct hand since it has become of public knowledge that they derive commissions, kickbacks, and ‘goodies’ from their so-called soft and hard projects.
Will the ban on earmarks be able to make government accountable on how money is being used? This, at the very least, is the intention on Obama’s ban to an infamous practice known as ‘earmarking’. It shall give professional lobbyists in US a hard day figuring out ways and schemes to grab a share of the money for the supposed-to-be clients. What exactly are the new rules if they are said to have been configured indirectly than directly?” Call to mind that superlobbyist Jack Abramoff gave earmarks a bad name and he was in fact imprisoned in the 2004 scandal. It gave spending committees the euphemism – to be dubbed as “The Favor Factory”.
As a result, not few lawmakers themselves are doing the rounds – lobbying from governors, state and local officials who have a say or hand over the funds so they can have a bite of the budget pie. Certainly, $825 billion must cause some trickle-down-effects over their respective cities or districts and constituencies. Everyone now await how the formula will look like and how they can grab an opportunity for themselves for some monies to be parceled out in their favor. This much is known – that some $358 billion will be for road, water, energy programs and others such as transportation projects in high-unemployment areas.
Certainly, members of Congress have a wish list or have outlined their project priorities. Under the ban, one observer thinks that there will be ‘a lot of projects that are not going to pass the smell test” which means that under the modified formulae, some projects that are supposed to be tracked may have to be listed in some uncharacteristic legislative language so as not to invite suspicion from the public. Fact is, projects may have to be listed not in terms of detailed specifics but in more generalized terms. Otherwise, one might be searching where that proverbial “Bridge to Nowhere” could be verified.
The US Conference of Mayors had likewise some $150 billion in so-called “ready-to-go” projects that quickly became fodder for criticism. Or so because it included money for Miami water park and a skate park in Portland, Maine? On the other hand, another group, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials eyed some $64 billion for projects not remotely mentioned thus making it difficult to criticize any item in the list.
Not few believe, no matter what happens, Obama’s earmark ban could always be circumvented. Lobbyists can in fact skirt the ban however way it goes – upfront, transparent to secretive or non-specific. Understandably, this ban has been Obama’s response against earmarking that has run the whole gamut of federal spending. The US economic meltdown has been traced to overspending that has characterized the American psyche. Further, it is said that congressional earmarks and pork-barrel spending have undermined state local decision-making, this according to Dr. Ronald Utt.
To think that pork-barrel spending in US is over a hundred year old – what further harm can it do vis a vis a global economic crisis sparked by the richest country in the world? Aside from a well-defined appropriation for Members of Congress as it is with the Senate, our Filipino lawmakers can have the best of both worlds – pork barrel funds as one and ‘earmarks’ or appropriation bills as another. Earmarks in the context defined brought about the recurrence of so-called ‘payola’ for bills wherein government has some high stakes and where private sector has stakes, lobby money which oftentimes cannot be “smelled” is the name of the game.
All told, we wish Obama can start right a work in reconstructing America and pull it away from an almost predictable economic sinkhole. Ironically, we have heard the government of PGMA asked for the same stimulus bill. I thought Executive Secretary Ermita said Obama will learn a lesson or two from PGMA? In the case of Philippine Senate, the closest example we can give of a congressional earmark would have been the P200 million appropriation for the C5 – appropriated not once, but twice. So who says RP is lagging behind in congressional earmarks, pray tell?
Contributing Writer: PRIMER C. PAGUNURAN
UP Diliman, Quezon City
Popularity: 1% [?]
Context – Context – Context
The emergency spending bill being rushed through the U.S. Congress is not a regular spending bill as the times call for it.
However the Philippines has programmed this years budget already even before the talk of the crisis began. There is no emergency allocation bill like what is being proposed in the U.S. Congress.
Even before the bill was introduced the fiscal year of the U.S. which starts in October was already running a deficit. This new spending bill will add another $850 billion to the budget deficit which is supposed to be disbursed over two years.
Naturally lobbyists in the U.S. Congress are salivating at the increase in allocations. That is legal. That is what representative government is all about. The debate in the U.S. Congress is going to be about expenditures that can promote long term economic activity or to build bridges to nowhere.
So there will have to be some wheeling and dealing to get obviously some pet projects for key people who will have to help to get out the votes for the approval.
Unlike here in the Philippines the issue is of wanton and direct corruption. First the projects themselves are more often than not more useless and benefit the lawmakers themselves.
Then there is the issue of corruption. The result has been a mis-mash of infrastructure projects. Mostly to benefit land developers.
The government leaves developmental projects to the multilateral institutions and ODA projects.
They also have the most profitable BOT type of projects.
You cannot compare the the U.S. system and the Philippine system.
The U.S. can afford to run huge deficits since a major of pool of global savings is their own currency.
Here in the Philippines we have a huge debt overhang and cannot afford huge deficits plus what is being built is already tainted by corruption.
Our debt obligations in a foreign currency is huge.
So the multiplier effect of the type of corrupt practices in the Philippines has a disastrous effect on sustainable developmental economic policies. In real terms purchasing power lags since increasing debt obligations will entail more taxes on shrinking purchasing power.
We built bad roads to nowhere so to speak.
the author of this post makes it sound as though obama has the power to BAN “earmarks” as though he is some kind of an omnipotent dictator that can prevent congress from setting aside specific spending program as part of an appropriation bill. all obama can do is exercise his veto power which itself is subject to congressional override. obama might be popular now but he is not that all-powerful. let’s not get carried away here.
Bencard,
He has a favorite term for it. “Pure legalese” he does not want to dwell into, and would like to make a post on issues from a purely layman’s perspective. Nothing wrong with it if you ask me, if the audience are laymen too, but unfortunately some are not.
jcc, what’s wrong with it, i think, is it’s tendency to mislead. i think writers, here or elsewhere, who publish their thoughts, have a responsibility to the readers (laymen or otherwise) to be reasonably accurate in giving information.
Some want to dominate and turn this into ‘Lawyers’ Paradise’.
I know what a trained legal mind is when I see one. Readers for that matter can discern the differences. Problem is, issues when presented in the medium no longer has to be couched in purely technical language – latin, latin, latin.
Certainly, it is cardinal norm that writers be reasonably accurate in their giving information but nonetheless, some information are in a constant state of flux. Still, if we have to capture it while it is moving – one tick, one space – at a time, what is wrong with that.
For instance, one here posted what reads as his open letter to someone, what reads as a part of a book he has already wrote and maybe published.
Come on, just stick to the issues presented and debunked them – piecemeal or utopia.
i think the language was clear. president obama has no power over the determination of earmarks, those are congressional prerogatives. if he does not want them he can veto those earmarks subject to congressional override. if you read your post, you were already painting halos on obama’s head about the earmarks as if he has already banned the practice of earmarking when he has not. where you deprive your own partymates of these earmarks they will not take this sitting down. expect a mutiny to erupt.
We are possibly agreed that fiscal irreponsibility is part of so-called pork barrel spending.
Fact is, we know that the infamous “bridge to nowhere” became the butt of public ridicule parcelled out as it was from congressional earmarks.
The point I wish to drive at is that under Obama, there ought to some significant changes in federal budget practices.
True enough, only congress has the power of the purse. While the president enjoys veto power, again, congress can do a congressional override.
Well, yes.
karlpopper,
now i see a window for meaningful dialogue. please keep up the good work, sir. :)
no problem, jcc.