Senate Rule 44 (Earmarks): If It Walks Like a Duck

Senators James Inhofe (R-OK) and Babs Boxer (D-CA) have asked senators to submit "requests for specific projects" to the Water Resources Development Act.

The word "earmark" is conspicuously absent from the letter, even though senators believe it trips all over Rule 44 which "requires disclosure of congressionally directed spending that recommends budget authority, credit authority or expenditure to an entity or specific state or locality."

Inhofe (through his spokesman) rejects the idea that committee-approved projects are "earmarks".

“One of the questions that will be worked out over the next year is the question of what is an earmark,” said Matt Dempsey, Inhofe’s spokesman. “Sen. Inhofe has been strong in saying that as long as something is authorized and appropriated, it’s not an earmark.”

Inhofe believes earmark restrictions should apply to projects that are dropped into bills without going through the proper authorizing process, and should not prohibit projects in the WRDA, an authorizing bill.

Inhofe misses the point. The problem is the perception that senators are gaming the system by directing pork to their home states piling stuff onto a bill that's nothing more than a spending vehicle for "stuff related to water". John McCain noted the 2007 version of this bill contained over 900 "specific project and programmatic requests" earmarks.

If Inhofe intends to change that perception, he's going to have to come up with something better than "not using the word earmark" or "Committee Approved! *two big thumbs up*"

via Gabriel Malor

posted by Dave In Texas at 11:20 AM

| Access Comments