Here’s some actual, real-life good news: the Obama Administration yesterday and Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) today both reported that the number of earmarks from fiscal year 2010 is down from fiscal year 2009.
Unfortunately, That’s where the good news stops…
The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) director, Peter Orszag, wrote on his blog that the total cost of earmarks was down 27 percent while the sheer number was down 17 percent between FY 2009 and FY 2010. In its review, OMB found 9,192 earmarks totaling nearly $11.1 billion in 2010 appropriations bills.
However, CAGW did its own review and came up with a vastly different amount. While CAGW found a similar number of earmarks, they calculated the total cost to taxpayers at $16.5 billion. CAGW claims earmarks “declined by 10.2 percent, from 10,160 in fiscal year 2009 to 9,129 in fiscal year 2010, while the total tax dollars spent to fund them decreased by 15.5 percent, from $19.6 billion to $16.5 billion.”
How is this discrepancy possible? Is it possible that the White House and Citizens Against Government Waste don’t have the same definition of an earmark?
Politico reported “CAGW’s researchers found 81 earmarks worth $6.5 billion that they say circumvent transparency rules. In the 2010 Defense Appropriations Act, for example, $6 billion was earmarked anonymously.”
In his blog post Orszag wrote, “All too often, earmarks are an easy vehicle for special interest deal-making.” Today, CAGW president Tom Schatz said, “[Members of Congress] have noticed that it is popular to posture as an anti-earmarker. Unfortunately… most members of Congress still aren’t willing to eliminate the practice and why meaningful reform is necessary.”
Since it seems that The White House agrees in principle with Citizens Against Government Waste — that earmarks are bad and that the process of earmarking needs to be eliminated — the question remains, do the two also agree in practice? Appropriations season is fast approaching. And it seems that taxpayers have ample reason to wonder just how many wasteful, pork-barrel earmarks are going to show up in next year’s review.
