Over at TPMmuckraker, Paul has been following the nasty, brutish (and short) Senate battle over earmark reform. Democrats had barely taken down their election-season “Ethics Reform” banners before Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) went bare-knuckled against a bipartisan push to make public the sponsors of billions in “earmarked” expenditures.
Reid’s proposal would have only required sponsors of earmarks for state and local projects — a new tennis court, an updated rec center — to identify themselves. Of course, those are just the earmarks that lawmakers already take credit for — it’s part of how they stay in office. And though he sure did try, Reid couldn’t corral his fellow senators to help his plan succeed.
Let’s put this in context. This was never an argument about what should be reported, this was an argument over what lawmakers tell the public. In the Senate (and the House) there are, I guarantee, meticulously detailed records of who asked for which earmarks, which were granted, and how much they were worth. Earmarks — pork, if one’s feeling uncharitable — are the most basic unit of political favors, and they aren’t doled out without the expectation that at some point, the favor will be returned. With some 14,000 such favors being passed out each year, the granters would be foolish not to keep lists somewhere.
If it’s so important to the lawmakers, isn’t it important to the voters also?
Update: Whoops. While I was writing this, a chagrined Reid acceded to the will of the majority. With a few tweaks, he’s withdrawing his objections to the tougher earmark reform rule.
