Having it both ways with earmarks

With House Republicans adopting a ban on earmarks and the Senate coming just short of doing the same, it was beginning to look like earmarks were on their last legs. Voters were fed up with the unseemly process of pork-barrel politics and representatives were eager to distance themselves from symbols of out-of-control government spending and waste.

But are earmarks really on their way out, or will they just take different — and more opaque — forms from now on?

The New York Times carried a story on Monday highlighting how earmark-critic Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) was able to send a letter to the Department of Education, which then disbursed $1.1 million in stimulus funds to a local Illinois school district. While correlation is not causation, the connection is hard to miss.

The article highlights how representatives can use alternatives to earmarking such as "phonemarking" and "lettermarking," whereby representatives make phone calls or send letters to agencies asking them to spend money on specific projects in their home state. In addition, there are "soft earmarks," which involve representatives giving subtle "suggestions" to agency heads on how to spend money, and "undisclosed earmarks," whereby a representative will increase an agency's budget and then request that agency to spend the extra money on the representative’s pet projects. All of this takes place outside of the traditional congressional process.

Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) says the earmark ban still has merit because the alternative methods are all non-binding, while the traditional earmarking process is binding. Perhaps, but at the end of the day the agencies are going to be tempted to do everything they can to stay in the good graces of the representatives who decide their annual budgets.

Going forward, decisions will have to be made on where the right balance between earmarks and transparency should be. If an earmark ban reduces the amount of earmarks but also makes tracking them harder, is that better than having more earmarks but also more earmark transparency?

House Ethics office will survive

In a victory for government reformers, the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) will survive under the soon-to-be GOP-controlled House:

Although he opposed its creation, incoming House Speaker John Boehner will keep an outside ethics watchdog — the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) — intact when the GOP takes control of the House of Representatives in January.

The OCE may be loathed by Representatives on both the left and the right but abolishing it is just politically unfeasible. With Congress at its lowest approval rating in 30 years, any move seen as lowering the ethical standards of the place would be supremely unpopular with the public.

In a way, I'm glad the OCE draws so much scorn from House representatives. Given the choice between a toothless OCE that everybody loves and an aggressive OCE that everybody hates, the choice is simple.

Ethics office (probably) not going anywhere

Despite coming under criticism from both the left and the right in recent years, the Office of Congressional Ethics appears likely to survive to the 112th Congress:

In the 33 months since it was formed, the Office of Congressional Ethics has been called unfair, unreasonable and out of control. It has clashed with the House ethics committee and made enemies in both parties.

Yet the OCE - the quasi-independent body charged with vetting allegations against lawmakers and forwarding them to the full ethics panel - is nearly certain to live to see its third birthday.

Despite some media reports to the contrary, several Republican lawmakers and aides inside and outside of the party leadership said there are no plans afoot to kill or significantly weaken the OCE.

A central complaint from lawmakers is that the OCE is too eager to make its investigations public. Even if the office ultimately finds no wrongdoing, lawmakers are forced to contend with ethics allegations until the dismissal is issued.

While I'm sure there are plenty in both parties who would love to see the office gone, Rep. Mike Simpson (R-ID) correctly notes that it would be a politically tough move. With Congress constantly mired with terrible approval ratings, the American people tend to be really supportive of anything that helps "clean up" Congress and very unsupportive of moves which or which appear to undermine that.

More legal trouble for Charlie Rangel

Charlie Rangel is not ending the year on a high note:

The FEC is investigating a complaint that Rangel misused his political action committee to fund his legal defense over House ethics rules, the New York Post reported Sunday.

Filed by the National Legal and Policy Center, the complaint charges that Rangel used nearly $400,000 raised by his National Leadership PAC to pay his legal bills. Rangel told the House ethics committee last month that he could no longer afford counsel in the panel’s proceedings after spending more than $2 million on legal fees.

We'll let you know how this one turns out.

Changes to coroner's inquest process approved

On Tuesday, the county commissioners approved controversial changes to the coroner's inquest process despite a disagreeing on the merits of including an ombudsmen in the plan:

Clark County commissioners on Tuesday approved major changes to the coroner’s inquest process that looks into deaths caused by police officers.

Commissioners voted 4-2 to support changes recommended by a 10-member panel that looked into the process last month.

Commissioners Larry Brown and Steve Sisolak voted against the ordinance. Commissioner Tom Collins was absent.

Most of nearly three hours of public testimony on the changes was focused on the addition of an ombudsperson to represent the decedent’s family during the inquest hearings, and Brown and Sisolak said they supported all of the changes except the ombudsperson.

Police officers and their union representatives said they wouldn’t participate in the inquests if the ombudsperson was present because it would make the proceedings adversarial.

Commissioner Sisolak wished more time had been spent considering the ombudsman idea. Yet, as the story notes, it was Sisolak who launched the panel and set the timeline for the meetings. If he didn't think enough time had been spent on the ombudsman idea, he should have asked for more meetings.

Sheriff Doug Gillespie supported the changes -- including the ombudsman -- believing that the inquest process will eventually find a way to accommodate both the victim's family and the officers.

Chris Collins, executive director for the Police Protective Association, blasted the changes, however, and warned that police officers would refuse to participate in an "adversarial" inquest process.

Police officers who spoke during the meeting said they would invoke their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination under the new inquest rules.

Although the commissioners passed the changes, the controversy may be only beginning.

25/7: Double dipping in Carson City

The Sun reports:

Some state workers are double dipping and the state Attorney General’s Office has been called to determine if criminal violations have taken place.

A legislative audit released Wednesday detailed a number of abuses involving existing state workers who were hired as a consultant by another agency and also cases where former state employees were put on a contract at excessive pay.

The audit shows 250 current or former state employees were hired as consultants by state agencies and were paid $11.6 million during fiscal 2008-2009. Of the total, 63 were existing state workers who gained those contracts.

My personal "favorite" is the state worker paid for 25 hours of work in a single day.  Most people wish for more hours in a day to get things done, but this is on another level.

Obviously fixing this won't be enough to fill the budget deficit, but every dollar counts and this audit is yet another example of government waste and proof that Nevada hasn't yet "cut to the bone."  $11.6 million saved is $11.6 million saved, no matter how you slice it.

(Photo credit Wikipedia)

Senate earmarks live to fight another day

The Washington Post reports:

The Senate on Tuesday rejected a plan that would impose a two-year moratorium on federal earmarking for lawmakers' pet projects, with a handful of Republicans joining with most Democrats to defeat the measure.

The proposal, which would have needed a two-thirds majority to pass, failed by a 39-to-56 margin.

Even though the measure ultimately failed, Politico notes that this is the strongest showing yet for earmark foes in banning the practice.