Earmarks fuel public distrust

A moratorium on congressional earmarks wouldn't make much of an impact on federal spending. Even though thousands of them were stuffed into last year's budget, they amounted to only $18 billion, which is small compared to total expenditures.

But the impact to public perceptions could be significant.

Earmarks are fine if they are debated openly and if the sponsor is clearly identified. Too often, however, they are attached to much larger spending bills and passed with little notice.

Both of Utah's senators last week voted against a one-year moratorium on earmarks, an idea that was soundly defeated. Sen. Bob Bennett said he will work to make such spending "responsible and transparent," which is the way he typically treats his own earmarks. Unfortunately, notorious examples from other senators, such as Alaska's infamous "bridge to nowhere," and the 2004 highway bill, which was stuffed with 6,371 unrelated earmarks, amounting to $24 billion in extra spending, has made the practice seem anything but democratic.

A one-year moratorium would have put some emphasis to public discontent without causing much harm.

Recent opinion polls show Americans hold members of Congress in low regard. This may have something to do with budget deficits and overspending. It most likely has more to do with the impression that too much is done in ways that are less than completely open.

Few issues divide members of Congress from the rest of the nation quite like this one. It seems as if active legislators mostly defend and approve of earmarks, while others — especially those running for president — understand that earmarks are offensive to the public.

President Bush opposes them. In his last State of the Union address, he threatened to veto any appropriation bill that didn't cut them in half. All three major presidential candidates also oppose earmarks, although their records as members of the Senate weren't always so pure (John McCain was the only one to consistently oppose them).

Earmarks have become symbols of a much larger problem on Capitol Hill — a lack of fiscal discipline. Last week, Congress also signaled its intent to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire in two years, essentially burdening Americans with a large tax increase.

The alternative, significant cuts in spending, is an idea in search of a champion. A one-year halt to earmarks at least would have been a step toward fiscal restraint.